State through Pimpalgaon Police Station vs Namdev Ramesh Jadhav — 466/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHNS130010432024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
741/2024
Filing Date
24-07-2024
Registration No
466/2024
Registration Date
24-07-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Pimpalgaon Baswant
Judge
3-2ND JOINT CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC PIMPALGAON
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
173
Police Station
PIMPALGAON POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State through Pimpalgaon Police Station
Adv. APP Vyavhare Somnath A.
Respondent(s)
Namdev Ramesh Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2ND JOINT CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC PIMPALGAON
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary In this Marathi court judgment (Case No. 466/2024), the court acquitted the accused, Ramesh Jadav, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for alleged illegal possession and sale of liquor. The court found that while 19 bottles of liquor were seized from the accused, the prosecution failed to conclusively prove through chemical analysis that the seized bottles actually contained alcohol, and insufficient evidence was presented to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ordered the accused's release and directed the confiscated goods to be disposed of according to legal procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this Marathi court judgment (Case No. 466/2024), the court acquitted the accused, Ramesh Jadav, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for alleged illegal possession and sale of liquor. The court found that while 19 bottles of liquor were seized from the accused, the prosecution failed to conclusively prove through chemical analysis that the seized bottles actually contained alcohol, and insufficient evidence was presented to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ordered the accused's release and directed the confiscated goods to be disposed of according to legal procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts