State - Shriwardhan P. S. vs Prajakta Pritam Polekar Advocate - Lad M.G. — 207/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG130003612025
Filing Number
300/2025
Filing Date
14-07-2025
Registration No
207/2025
Registration Date
14-07-2025
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
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
41
Police Station
Shriwardhan
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State - Shriwardhan P. S.
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Prajakta Pritam Polekar Advocate - Lad M.G.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J D AND J M F C SHRIWARDHAN
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 22-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 07-11-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: SCC 207/2025 The court acquitted respondent Prajakta Pritam Polekar of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949 for alleged unauthorized sale of illicit liquor. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the two key prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution's allegations, and critically, the prosecution did not file any chemical analysis report to establish that the seized liquid was actually liquor. The court ruled that without such scientific evidence, the prosecution could not substantiate its claims, rendering the case insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: SCC 207/2025 The court acquitted respondent Prajakta Pritam Polekar of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949 for alleged unauthorized sale of illicit liquor. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the two key prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution's allegations, and critically, the prosecution did not file any chemical analysis report to establish that the seized liquid was actually liquor. The court ruled that without such scientific evidence, the prosecution could not substantiate its claims, rendering the case insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts