State through Pimpalgaon Police Station vs Sudam Amarshingh Chavan Advocate - Hadole Pravin B. — 525/2022
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHNS130011012022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
834/2022
Filing Date
12-10-2022
Registration No
525/2022
Registration Date
12-10-2022
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
190
Police Station
PIMPALGAON POLICE STATION
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State through Pimpalgaon Police Station
Adv. Varungashe Manisha A.
Respondent(s)
Sudam Amarshingh Chavan Advocate - Hadole Pravin B.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2ND JOINT CIVIL JUDGE JD AND JMFC PIMPALGAON
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 17-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 23-01-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused (Sudam Amarsing Chavan) in a case under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of possessing illicit liquor beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the sole prosecution witness's testimony was unreliable and contained significant contradictions, while the accused's defense testimony raised reasonable doubt about guilt. Consequently, the accused was discharged and all bonds/securities were ordered to be cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused (Sudam Amarsing Chavan) in a case under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, section 65(E), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of possessing illicit liquor beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the sole prosecution witness's testimony was unreliable and contained significant contradictions, while the accused's defense testimony raised reasonable doubt about guilt. Consequently, the accused was discharged and all bonds/securities were ordered to be cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts