State of Maharashtra vs Bhauso Vishnu Palange Advocate - K. B. Desai — 12/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65-E. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO200000242024
Filing Number
20/2024
Filing Date
05-01-2024
Registration No
12/2024
Registration Date
05-01-2024
Court
CJJD and JMFC, Kale-Kheriwade
Judge
1-CJJD and JMFC Kale-Kherivade
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
173
Police Station
Inspector, State Excise, Shahuwadi
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Bhauso Vishnu Palange Advocate - K. B. Desai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Kale-Kherivade
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 08-12-2025 | Hearing |
| 15-11-2025 | Hearing |
| 03-10-2025 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Bhauso Vishnu Palange (Case 12/2024) The court acquitted the accused, Bhauso Vishnu Palange, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for alleged illegal possession of country liquor with intent to sell. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as critical procedural safeguards—including proper identification of the accused at the scene, documentation of the vehicle details used in the raid, and corroborating witness testimony—were inadequately proven. The court found insufficient evidence to conclusively link the accused to the seized alcohol and concluded the case lacked the necessary certainty for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Bhauso Vishnu Palange (Case 12/2024) The court acquitted the accused, Bhauso Vishnu Palange, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for alleged illegal possession of country liquor with intent to sell. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as critical procedural safeguards—including proper identification of the accused at the scene, documentation of the vehicle details used in the raid, and corroborating witness testimony—were inadequately proven. The court found insufficient evidence to conclusively link the accused to the seized alcohol and concluded the case lacked the necessary certainty for 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