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
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
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
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 22-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 05-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 06-12-2025 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts