State of Maharashtra through Inspetor Excise Dept Alibag vs Parshuram Thama More Advocate - Dandekar A. P. — 77/2024

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65E. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 09th March 2026.

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHRG090001342024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

104/2024

Filing Date

28-02-2024

Registration No

77/2024

Registration Date

28-02-2024

Court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Roha

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

FIR Details

FIR Number

329

Police Station

Kolad Police station

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65E

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra through Inspetor Excise Dept Alibag

Adv. Government Pleader

Respondent(s)

Parshuram Thama More Advocate - Dandekar A. P.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

09-03-2026

Disposed

06-01-2026

Evidence Part Heard

14-10-2025

Evidence Part Heard

29-07-2025

Evidence Part Heard

20-05-2025

Evidence Part Heard

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

The court acquitted the accused under Section 65E of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 and stopped proceedings under Section 258 of the CrPC due to the prosecution's failure to file a chemical analysis report even after two years from the charge-sheet filing, making conviction impossible. Police records were retained for potential case reopening under Section 300(5) of the CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

07-01-2025
Plea
11-02-2025
Evidence
11-02-2025
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the accused under Section 65E of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 and stopped proceedings under Section 258 of the CrPC due to the prosecution's failure to file a chemical analysis report even after two years from the charge-sheet filing, making conviction impossible. Police records were retained for potential case reopening under Section 300(5) of the CrPC. 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 Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Roha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case