The State of Maharashtra vs Ramesh Rangrao Suryawanshi Advocate - Jadhav Satish C — 63/2020

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHLA160003372020

Filing Number

185/2020

Filing Date

31-Jul-2020

Registration No

63/2020

Registration Date

31-Jul-2020

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Deoni

Judge

1-Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

146

Police Station

Police Station Deoni

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramesh Rangrao Suryawanshi Advocate - Jadhav Satish C

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary of Case 63/2020 Court Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Ramesh Rangrao Suryawanshi of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) on March 13, 2026. The court found that prosecution witnesses were not adequately presented to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the chemical examination report alone was insufficient to prove the illegal liquor possession charge. Key Reasoning: The judge noted that the prosecution failed to fulfill its obligations by not producing all witnesses as directed on multiple dates, causing undue delay. The court observed that while liquor was allegedly seized from the accused, the prosecution's procedural lapses and inadequate evidence meant the charge could not be sustained under criminal law standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  4. 11-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  6. 05-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  7. 06-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  8. 14-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  9. 16-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  10. 15-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  11. 08-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  12. 27-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  13. 03-May-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  14. 21-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  15. 22-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  16. 13-Dec-2024

    B.W._Ready

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  17. 25-Oct-2024

    B.W._Ready

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  18. 27-Sep-2024

    B.W._Ready

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  19. 24-Jul-2024

    B.W._Ready

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  20. 22-Apr-2024

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  21. 05-Feb-2024

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  22. 07-Dec-2023

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  23. 30-Oct-2023

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  24. 04-Sep-2023

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  25. 18-Jul-2023

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  26. 21-Apr-2023

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  27. 08-Feb-2023

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  28. 15-Dec-2022

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  29. 15-Sep-2022

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  30. 26-Jul-2022

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  31. 21-Apr-2022

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  32. 31-Jan-2022

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  33. 07-Dec-2021

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  34. 18-Aug-2021

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  35. 18-May-2021

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  36. 23-Feb-2021

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  37. 30-Dec-2020

    Appearance

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  38. 31-Oct-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 31-Jul-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 63/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 63/2020 Court Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Ramesh Rangrao Suryawanshi of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) on March 13, 2026. The court found that prosecution witnesses were not adequately presented to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the chemical examination report alone was insufficient to prove the illegal liquor possession charge. Key Reasoning: The judge noted that the prosecution failed to fulfill its obligations by not producing all witnesses as directed on multiple dates, causing undue delay. The court observed that while liquor was allegedly seized from the accused, the prosecution's procedural lapses and inadequate evidence meant the charge could not be sustained under criminal law standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case