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

Case disposed

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

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(a),(e)

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

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

24-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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

10-03-2026
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court ,Chandwad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case