State of Maharashtra vs Amol S/o Narayan Buchade. — 4/2026

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHLA060000042026

Filing Number

4/2026

Filing Date

01-Jan-2026

Registration No

4/2026

Registration Date

01-Jan-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ahmedpur

Judge

2-2nd Jt. Cjjd And JMFC Ahmedpur

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

158

Police Station

State Excise Udgir

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Amol S/o Narayan Buchade.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court discharged the accused Amol in a prohibition case (Section 65(a)(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act) after finding critical procedural failures: the investigating officer failed to file chemical analysis reports and did not name the evidence receiver or carrier in witness list, breaking the chain of custody. The court stopped proceedings under Section 281 BNSS, citing that the case was pending over two years with no possibility of proving charges, and invoked its discretion to reduce criminal case pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Jt. Cjjd And JMFC Ahmedpur

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Cjjd And JMFC Ahmedpur

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 01-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court discharged the accused Amol in a prohibition case (Section 65(a)(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act) after finding critical procedural failures: the investigating officer failed to file chemical analysis reports and did not name the evidence receiver or carrier in witness list, breaking the chain of custody. The court stopped proceedings under Section 281 BNSS, citing that the case was pending over two years with no possibility of proving charges, and invoked its discretion to reduce criminal case pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case