State of Maharashtra vs Shravan Dilip Jadhav Advocate - S. P. Lokhande — 1016/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 66(B). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO170015172024
e-Filing Number
27-12-2024
Filing Number
1252/2024
Filing Date
30-12-2024
Registration No
1016/2024
Registration Date
30-12-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Panhala
Judge
3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
217
Police Station
Kodoli Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Shravan Dilip Jadhav Advocate - S. P. Lokhande
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case No. 1016/2024: The court acquitted Shravan Dilip Jadhav of charges under Section 66(b) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for allegedly consuming liquor in a public place. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the alleged contraband from the accused's possession due to material discrepancies in witness testimony, lack of independent corroboration from the panch witness, and absence of chemical analysis proving the seized substance was actually liquor. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case No. 1016/2024: The court acquitted Shravan Dilip Jadhav of charges under Section 66(b) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for allegedly consuming liquor in a public place. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the alleged contraband from the accused's possession due to material discrepancies in witness testimony, lack of independent corroboration from the panch witness, and absence of chemical analysis proving the seized substance was actually liquor. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts