State of Maharashtra thr. State Excise Radhanagari vs Dattatraya Rangrao Powar Advocate - U. M. Mankar — 202/2022

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHKO190006922022

Filing Number

402/2022

Filing Date

18-Aug-2022

Registration No

202/2022

Registration Date

18-Aug-2022

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari

Judge

1-Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

117

Police Station

State Exice office, Radhanagari No.2

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra thr. State Excise Radhanagari

    Adv. A. P. P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dattatraya Rangrao Powar Advocate - U. M. Mankar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The court acquitted defendant Dattatraya Rangrao Powar of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing and selling prohibited alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the seized bottles were actually prohibited liquor or that the defendant possessed them for sale, as the chemical analysis report was not properly authenticated and prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent testimony. The defendant was acquitted under CrPC Section 255(1) and ordered to be released on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Disposed

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  6. 21-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  7. 03-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  8. 24-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  9. 11-Nov-2025

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  10. 30-Oct-2025

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  11. 13-Oct-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  12. 20-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  13. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  14. 07-May-2025

    Evidence

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  15. 15-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  16. 05-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  17. 17-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  18. 21-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Jt. Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  19. 04-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Jt. Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  20. 20-Apr-2024

    Hearing

    Jt. Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  21. 29-Feb-2024

    Hearing

    Jt. Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  22. 06-Dec-2023

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  23. 07-Oct-2023

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  24. 02-Aug-2023

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  25. 20-Jun-2023

    Awaiting Summons

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  26. 05-Apr-2023

    Awaiting Summons

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  27. 13-Feb-2023

    Awaiting Summons

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  28. 08-Nov-2022

    Awaiting Summons

    Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  29. 22-Aug-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 18-Aug-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 202/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted defendant Dattatraya Rangrao Powar of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing and selling prohibited alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the seized bottles were actually prohibited liquor or that the defendant possessed them for sale, as the chemical analysis report was not properly authenticated and prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent testimony. The defendant was acquitted under CrPC Section 255(1) and ordered to be released on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case