State of Maharashtra vs Ravindra Tanaji Shitap — 1039/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRT030014922024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1491/2024
Filing Date
20-09-2024
Registration No
1039/2024
Registration Date
20-09-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Ratnagiri
Judge
3-2ND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE F.C. RATNAGIRI
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
136
Police Station
Ratnagiri Rural Police Station Ratnagiri.
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Ravindra Tanaji Shitap
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2ND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE F.C. RATNAGIRI
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 24-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 18-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 13-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The First Grade Judicial Magistrate Court at Ratnagiri acquitted defendant Ravindra Tanaji Shitap of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession of 5 liters of country liquor on July 30, 2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case with credible evidence, noting critical gaps such as the absence of eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, inconsistencies in the seizure procedure, and questionable chain of custody for the seized material, which cast doubt on whether the crime was actually committed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The First Grade Judicial Magistrate Court at Ratnagiri acquitted defendant Ravindra Tanaji Shitap of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession of 5 liters of country liquor on July 30, 2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case with credible evidence, noting critical gaps such as the absence of eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, inconsistencies in the seizure procedure, and questionable chain of custody for the seized material, which cast doubt on whether the crime was actually committed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts