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.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO190006922022
Filing Number
402/2022
Filing Date
18-08-2022
Registration No
202/2022
Registration Date
18-08-2022
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari
Judge
1-CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
117
Police Station
State Exice office, Radhanagari No.2
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra thr. State Excise Radhanagari
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Dattatraya Rangrao Powar Advocate - U. M. Mankar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts