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.

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

CNR: MHLA160003372020

Case disposed

Filing Number

185/2020

Filing Date

31-07-2020

Registration No

63/2020

Registration Date

31-07-2020

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Deoni

Judge

1-CJJD and JMFC Deoni

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

146

Police Station

Police Station Deoni

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E)

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Ramesh Rangrao Suryawanshi Advocate - Jadhav Satish C

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Deoni

13-03-2026

Disposed

11-02-2026

Hearing

22-01-2026

Hearing

05-01-2026

Hearing

06-12-2025

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division, Deoni All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case