State of Maharashtra thr. Excise Department vs Ravindra Domaji Shindekar Advocate - APP — 467/2020
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHNG100007952020
Filing Number
679/2020
Filing Date
22-06-2020
Registration No
467/2020
Registration Date
22-06-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Umrer
Judge
1-JT.CIVIL JUDGE JR. DVN. J.M.F.C.UMRER
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
87
Police Station
Umrer
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra thr. Excise Department
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ravindra Domaji Shindekar Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JT.CIVIL JUDGE JR. DVN. J.M.F.C.UMRER
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 02-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 21-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 17-10-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The First Class Magistrate's Court, Umred, acquitted Ravindra Domaji Shindekar of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly selling 14 sealed bottles of Officer's Choice whisky without a license on August 19, 2019. The court found the prosecution's case insufficient, as only one witness (a panchnama witness) was examined who provided no substantive support to the charges. Due to lack of concrete evidence proving the offense, the accused was acquitted under CrPC Section 258. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The First Class Magistrate's Court, Umred, acquitted Ravindra Domaji Shindekar of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly selling 14 sealed bottles of Officer's Choice whisky without a license on August 19, 2019. The court found the prosecution's case insufficient, as only one witness (a panchnama witness) was examined who provided no substantive support to the charges. Due to lack of concrete evidence proving the offense, the accused was acquitted under CrPC Section 258. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts