State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur vs Ajay Ganpat Parate — 432/2024

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Uncontested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG170007622024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

02-12-2024

Filing Number

687/2024

Filing Date

02-12-2024

Registration No

432/2024

Registration Date

02-12-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Bhiwapur

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

395

Police Station

Bhiwapur

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

State of Mah. through Police Station, Bhiwapur

Adv. Adv. V. U. Mirche

Respondent(s)

Ajay Ganpat Parate

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. AND J.M.F.C.,BHIWAPUR

10-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Arguments

20-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

30-01-2026

Evidence Part Heard

16-01-2026

Evidence Part Heard

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

The court acquitted the accused Ajay Ganpat Porate of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt despite chemical reports confirming illicit liquor in seized bottles. The court ruled that the prosecution could not prove the seizure procedure through credible witness testimony, as the sole witness examined could not corroborate the prosecution's case and other key witnesses failed to appear despite summons. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

06-01-2026
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused Ajay Ganpat Porate of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt despite chemical reports confirming illicit liquor in seized bottles. The court ruled that the prosecution could not prove the seizure procedure through credible witness testimony, as the sole witness examined could not corroborate the prosecution's case and other key witnesses failed to appear despite summons. 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 , Bhiwapur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case