State Of Maharashtra Inspector State Excise Squad 1 Kolhapur vs Ananda Kallappa Bhat — 449/2025
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: MHKO180008712025
Filing Number
600/2025
Filing Date
23-12-2025
Registration No
449/2025
Registration Date
23-12-2025
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
49
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)
Ananda Kallappa Bhat
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Notice_Unready |
| 16-01-2026 | Notice_Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 449/2025 The court acquitted respondent Ananda Kallappa Bhat of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E), finding that the State failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution presented witness testimony from a panchnama witness (Ravindra), the court noted critical gaps in evidence: the chemical analysis report was not submitted to conclusively establish that the seized bottles contained liquor, and other key witnesses were not examined, leaving substantial doubt about the seizure and its contents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 449/2025 The court acquitted respondent Ananda Kallappa Bhat of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E), finding that the State failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution presented witness testimony from a panchnama witness (Ravindra), the court noted critical gaps in evidence: the chemical analysis report was not submitted to conclusively establish that the seized bottles contained liquor, and other key witnesses were not examined, leaving substantial doubt about the seizure and its contents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts