State - Dighi Sagari P. S. vs Bhalchandra Balaram Chikati — 311/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG130005022024
Filing Number
405/2024
Filing Date
04-11-2024
Registration No
311/2024
Registration Date
04-11-2024
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
76
Police Station
Dighi Sagari
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State - Dighi Sagari P. S.
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Bhalchandra Balaram Chikati
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J D AND J M F C SHRIWARDHAN
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 30-12-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 311/2024 The court acquitted defendant Bhalchandra Balaram Chikati of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act for alleged unlawful sale of country liquor. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because it did not submit chemical analysis reports to confirm the seized liquid was actually alcohol, and the key prosecution witness (panchnama witness) contradicted the prosecution's narrative during cross-examination, stating no seizure or panchnama was conducted in his presence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 311/2024 The court acquitted defendant Bhalchandra Balaram Chikati of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act for alleged unlawful sale of country liquor. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because it did not submit chemical analysis reports to confirm the seized liquid was actually alcohol, and the key prosecution witness (panchnama witness) contradicted the prosecution's narrative during cross-examination, stating no seizure or panchnama was conducted in his presence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts