State of Maharashtra vs Lakhan Maruti Sutar — 431/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 85(1). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHKO180008362025

Filing Number

576/2025

Filing Date

06-Dec-2025

Registration No

431/2025

Registration Date

08-Dec-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Kurundwad

Judge

3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

85

Police Station

Kurundwad Police Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 85(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. A. P. P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Lakhan Maruti Sutar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The court acquitted respondent Lakhan Maruti Sutar of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 85(1), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was intoxicated in a public place. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, particularly the absence of medical/blood test reports and insufficient witness testimony, and accordingly granted the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  4. 10-Feb-2026

    Notice_Unready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  5. 16-Jan-2026

    Notice_Unready

    Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad

  6. 11-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 431/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted respondent Lakhan Maruti Sutar of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 85(1), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was intoxicated in a public place. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, particularly the absence of medical/blood test reports and insufficient witness testimony, and accordingly granted the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case