State of Maharashtra Through PSO Tirora vs Vijay Damaji Uke — 1303/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGO080017812024
Filing Number
1649/2024
Filing Date
23-12-2024
Registration No
1303/2024
Registration Date
23-12-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Tirora
Judge
2-Jt.Civil JudgeJr. Dn. JMFC. Tirora
Decision Date
13th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
684
Police Station
Police Station Officer Tirora
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through PSO Tirora
Adv. Borikar M.K.
Respondent(s)
Vijay Damaji Uke
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.Civil JudgeJr. Dn. JMFC. Tirora
Disposed
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 29-10-2025 | Evidence |
| 14-08-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused under Maharashtra Excise Act, Section 65(E) and Section 77(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was charged with possessing 10 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹1,000, but the court determined that the independent panchanama witness testimony was unreliable and the prosecution had not adequately established the guilt. Consequently, the accused was granted bail and discharged under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused under Maharashtra Excise Act, Section 65(E) and Section 77(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was charged with possessing 10 liters of illicit liquor valued at ₹1,000, but the court determined that the independent panchanama witness testimony was unreliable and the prosecution had not adequately established the guilt. Consequently, the accused was granted bail and discharged under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts