State Excise Deparment Mahad vs Rakhi Rajkumar Bhatkar — 232/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(B,K,F). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG130004142025
Filing Number
339/2025
Filing Date
13-08-2025
Registration No
232/2025
Registration Date
13-08-2025
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
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Excise Deparment Mahad
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Rakhi Rajkumar Bhatkar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J D AND J M F C SHRIWARDHAN
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 30-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-12-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
| 08-10-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: SCC 232/2025 The court acquitted respondent Rakhi Rajkumar Bhatkar of charges under Maharashtra Excise Act, Section 65(f) for alleged illegal possession of illicit liquor materials. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical evidentiary gaps: prosecution witnesses did not support the case, there was no credible chain of custody documentation for the seized materials, and significant time lapses between seizure and laboratory testing raised contamination concerns. The court found the prosecution unable to prove the case with the required certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: SCC 232/2025 The court acquitted respondent Rakhi Rajkumar Bhatkar of charges under Maharashtra Excise Act, Section 65(f) for alleged illegal possession of illicit liquor materials. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical evidentiary gaps: prosecution witnesses did not support the case, there was no credible chain of custody documentation for the seized materials, and significant time lapses between seizure and laboratory testing raised contamination concerns. The court found the prosecution unable to prove the case with the required certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts