State Through Dindori Police Station. vs Ghanshyam Govardhan Chavan Advocate - Ghorpade Pradip S. — 38/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHNS140000582024
e-Filing Number
04-01-2024
Filing Number
50/2024
Filing Date
08-01-2024
Registration No
38/2024
Registration Date
08-01-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Dindori
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
492
Police Station
DINDORI POLICE STATION
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Through Dindori Police Station.
Adv. App Valvi Rajendra B.
Respondent(s)
Ghanshyam Govardhan Chavan Advocate - Ghorpade Pradip S.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 08-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 11-09-2025 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court at Dindori acquitted the accused, Dhanshyam Govardhan Chavan, on March 10, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while liquor bottles were seized from the accused's possession, the prosecution did not provide chemical analysis reports to conclusively establish the presence of alcohol, and the sole prosecution witness could not provide credible corroboration of the crime. Due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, the accused was declared not guilty and unconditionally discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court at Dindori acquitted the accused, Dhanshyam Govardhan Chavan, on March 10, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while liquor bottles were seized from the accused's possession, the prosecution did not provide chemical analysis reports to conclusively establish the presence of alcohol, and the sole prosecution witness could not provide credible corroboration of the crime. Due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, the accused was declared not guilty and unconditionally discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts