State of Maharashtra vs Vasant Shivram Sawant Advocate - बी. एस. आंबेकर — 588/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO170008752024
Filing Number
730/2024
Filing Date
12-07-2024
Registration No
588/2024
Registration Date
12-07-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Panhala
Judge
3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
81
Police Station
Kodoli Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Vasant Shivram Sawant Advocate - बी. एस. आंबेकर
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 13-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panhala acquitted 77-year-old Vasant Shivram Sawant of charges under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing 14 bottles of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of contraband due to lack of independent witness corroboration, absence of chemical analysis confirming the substance was intoxicant, and insufficient evidence quality. The court emphasized that while a sole witness's testimony can be believed if trustworthy and discrepancy-free, the prosecution's failure to examine independent witnesses and provide lab reports created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panhala acquitted 77-year-old Vasant Shivram Sawant of charges under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing 14 bottles of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of contraband due to lack of independent witness corroboration, absence of chemical analysis confirming the substance was intoxicant, and insufficient evidence quality. The court emphasized that while a sole witness's testimony can be believed if trustworthy and discrepancy-free, the prosecution's failure to examine independent witnesses and provide lab reports created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts