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
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
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.
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence
Appearance
Notice_Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts