State of Maharashtra thr. P. S. Umrer vs Satish Bhaskar Katole — 805/2024

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG100015892024

Case disposed

Filing Number

1084/2024

Filing Date

14-10-2024

Registration No

805/2024

Registration Date

14-10-2024

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

428

Police Station

Umrer

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra thr. P. S. Umrer

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Satish Bhaskar Katole

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JT.CIVIL JUDGE JR. DVN. J.M.F.C.UMRER

12-03-2026

Disposed

20-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

09-01-2026

Evidence

07-11-2025

Evidence

16-09-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted accused Satish Bhaskar Katole of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing and selling 12 sealed containers of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the two witnesses (panchas) who merely acknowledged their signatures on the panchnama did not provide substantive support to the prosecution's case, and no corroborating evidence proved the seized items were recovered from the accused's possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted accused Satish Bhaskar Katole of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing and selling 12 sealed containers of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the two witnesses (panchas) who merely acknowledged their signatures on the panchnama did not provide substantive support to the prosecution's case, and no corroborating evidence proved the seized items were recovered from the accused's possession. 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 , Umrer All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case