State of Maharashtra vs Sanjay Ananda Katkar Advocate - Vikrant Shamrao Patil — 217/2024

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th April 2026.

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

CNR: MHKO200004182024

Case disposed

Filing Number

318/2024

Filing Date

24-10-2024

Registration No

217/2024

Registration Date

24-10-2024

Court

CJJD and JMFC, Kale-Kheriwade

Judge

1-CJJD and JMFC Kale-Kherivade

Decision Date

09th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

128

Police Station

Inspector, State Excise, Divisional Fine Sqad, Kolhapur

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(E)

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

Sanjay Ananda Katkar Advocate - Vikrant Shamrao Patil

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Kale-Kherivade

09-04-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

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

05-02-2026

Hearing

29-12-2025

Hearing

06-10-2025

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

09-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Ananda Katkar (Case 217/2024) The court acquitted accused Sanjay Ananda Katkar of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(E) for alleged illegal liquor sale. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, relying on testimony from only one investigating officer without corroborating evidence, no independent eyewitness, and unsubstantiated seizure documentation or laboratory reports. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Ananda Katkar (Case 217/2024) The court acquitted accused Sanjay Ananda Katkar of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(E) for alleged illegal liquor sale. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, relying on testimony from only one investigating officer without corroborating evidence, no independent eyewitness, and unsubstantiated seizure documentation or laboratory reports. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CJJD and JMFC, Kale-Kheriwade All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case