State of Maharashtra Through Shirol Police Station vs Shrinivas Ramchandra Kambale — 1275/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th May 2026.

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHKO070026642025

Case disposed

Filing Number

1765/2025

Filing Date

14-11-2025

Registration No

1275/2025

Registration Date

14-11-2025

Court

Civil Court Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur

Judge

16-2nd Joint C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Jaysingpur.

Decision Date

13th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

307

Police Station

Police Station Shirol

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra Through Shirol Police Station

Adv. A. P. P.

Respondent(s)

Shrinivas Ramchandra Kambale

Hearing History

Judge: 16-2nd Joint C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C. Jaysingpur.

13-05-2026

Disposed

10-04-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

16-03-2026

Evidence

12-01-2026

Appearance

24-11-2025

Notice_Unready

Final Orders / Judgements

13-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: 1275/2025 Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate Court at Jaysinghpur acquitted defendant Shrinivas Ramchandra Kambale of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged unlawful possession of country liquor for sale. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient and inconsistent evidence—including a single witness (seizure panchnama witness) who could not corroborate the seizure, lack of chemical analysis reports, absence of independent witnesses, and failure to establish that the seized substance was actually liquor or in the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1275/2025 Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate Court at Jaysinghpur acquitted defendant Shrinivas Ramchandra Kambale of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged unlawful possession of country liquor for sale. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient and inconsistent evidence—including a single witness (seizure panchnama witness) who could not corroborate the seizure, lack of chemical analysis reports, absence of independent witnesses, and failure to establish that the seized substance was actually liquor or in the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Sr.Dn. and Jr.Dn. Jaysingpur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case