State Of Maharashtra Inspector State Excise Squad 1 Kolhapur vs Jayashri Pramod Minekar — 417/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E),90,103. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 20th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO180008032025
Filing Number
558/2025
Filing Date
21-11-2025
Registration No
417/2025
Registration Date
24-11-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kurundwad
Judge
3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
50
Police Station
Excise Office Kolhapur.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Maharashtra Inspector State Excise Squad 1 Kolhapur
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Jayashri Pramod Minekar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Jayashri Pramod Minekar (417/2025) The court acquitted the respondent, Jayashri Pramod Minekar, of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution presented witness testimony regarding seizure of alleged illicit liquor, a critical gap existed: a chemical analysis report could not definitively establish that the seized material was actually country-made liquor, leaving substantial doubt about the core allegation. The court concluded that without concrete forensic confirmation, the prosecution's circumstantial evidence was insufficient to secure conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Jayashri Pramod Minekar (417/2025) The court acquitted the respondent, Jayashri Pramod Minekar, of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution presented witness testimony regarding seizure of alleged illicit liquor, a critical gap existed: a chemical analysis report could not definitively establish that the seized material was actually country-made liquor, leaving substantial doubt about the core allegation. The court concluded that without concrete forensic confirmation, the prosecution's circumstantial evidence was insufficient to secure conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts