State of Maharashtra vs Sudhakar S/o Ganpati Mundhe . — 46/2026
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(E). Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 13th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHLA060001662026
Filing Number
85/2026
Filing Date
21-01-2026
Registration No
46/2026
Registration Date
21-01-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ahmedpur
Judge
2-2nd Jt. CJJD And JMFC Ahmedpur
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
261
Police Station
Ahmdepur Police Station
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Sudhakar S/o Ganpati Mundhe .
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Jt. CJJD And JMFC Ahmedpur
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-01-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Sudhakar (46/2026) The court discharged the accused Sudhakar under Section 258 CrPC (Section 281 BNSS) for alleged offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: the investigating officer failed to file the chemical analysis report, omitted the receiver and carrier of seized liquor from witness lists, and broke the chain of custody. Without proof that the seized material was properly sealed and forwarded for analysis, the offence could not be proven beyond doubt. The four-year-old case was disposed to reduce criminal case pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Sudhakar (46/2026) The court discharged the accused Sudhakar under Section 258 CrPC (Section 281 BNSS) for alleged offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: the investigating officer failed to file the chemical analysis report, omitted the receiver and carrier of seized liquor from witness lists, and broke the chain of custody. Without proof that the seized material was properly sealed and forwarded for analysis, the offence could not be proven beyond doubt. The four-year-old case was disposed to reduce criminal case pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts