State through Vadner Bhairav Police Station vs Shankar Shivaji Gangurde — 459/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(a),(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHNS160011092024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
891/2024
Filing Date
27-06-2024
Registration No
459/2024
Registration Date
27-06-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Chandwad
Judge
2-Jt. CJJD and JMFC, Chandwad
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
154
Police Station
WADNER BHAIRAV POLICE STATION
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State through Vadner Bhairav Police Station
Adv. Walke Rakesh M.
Respondent(s)
Shankar Shivaji Gangurde
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. CJJD and JMFC, Chandwad
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 06-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 17-11-2025 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Shankar Shivaji Gangurde, of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act, Section 65(a)(e), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes that while prohibited liquor (140 bottles of Prince Sant alcohol) and a motorcycle were seized, the prosecution could not establish with sufficient evidence that the accused was in possession for the purpose of sale, as it relied on only one witness testimony without corroborating evidence and failed to produce other essential witnesses despite multiple opportunities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Shankar Shivaji Gangurde, of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act, Section 65(a)(e), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes that while prohibited liquor (140 bottles of Prince Sant alcohol) and a motorcycle were seized, the prosecution could not establish with sufficient evidence that the accused was in possession for the purpose of sale, as it relied on only one witness testimony without corroborating evidence and failed to produce other essential witnesses despite multiple opportunities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts