State Excise Deparment Mahad vs Sanghavi Sandesh Polekar — 180/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(B,K,E,F). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

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

CNR: MHRG130002952025

Case disposed

Filing Number

248/2025

Filing Date

12-06-2025

Registration No

180/2025

Registration Date

12-06-2025

Court

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

Judge

1-CIVIL JUDGE J D AND J M F C SHRIWARDHAN

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Acts & Sections

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(B,K,E,F)

Petitioner(s)

State Excise Deparment Mahad

Adv. App

Respondent(s)

Sanghavi Sandesh Polekar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J D AND J M F C SHRIWARDHAN

12-03-2026

Disposed

16-02-2026

Evidence Part Heard

20-12-2025

Evidence

11-11-2025

Evidence

26-09-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: State Excise Department Mahad v. Sanghavi Sandesh Polekar (180/2025) The court acquitted the respondent Sanghavi Sandesh Polekar of charges under Maharashtra Excise Act 1949, Section 65(E)(F) for alleged unauthorized possession and sale of illicit liquor manufacturing chemicals. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the key prosecution witnesses denied the seizure and provided no chemical analysis report to establish that the seized liquid was actually illicit liquor-making material. Consequently, the court discharged the accused, cancelled his bail bond, and ordered forfeiture of the seized materials to the Excise Department. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State Excise Department Mahad v. Sanghavi Sandesh Polekar (180/2025) The court acquitted the respondent Sanghavi Sandesh Polekar of charges under Maharashtra Excise Act 1949, Section 65(E)(F) for alleged unauthorized possession and sale of illicit liquor manufacturing chemicals. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the key prosecution witnesses denied the seizure and provided no chemical analysis report to establish that the seized liquid was actually illicit liquor-making material. Consequently, the court discharged the accused, cancelled his bail bond, and ordered forfeiture of the seized materials to the Excise Department. 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.Shriwardhan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case