State of Maharashtra vs Avinash Narayan Chavan Advocate - Tharwal Swaroop Subhodh — 136/2020
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRT050002752020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
233/2020
Filing Date
12-03-2020
Registration No
136/2020
Registration Date
12-03-2020
Court
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed
Judge
2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
49
Police Station
State Excise, Khed.
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Avinash Narayan Chavan Advocate - Tharwal Swaroop Subhodh
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 05-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 11-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused Avinash Narayanrao Chavan of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act due to insufficient evidence. Although illicit liquor (18 liters of country liquor) and related items were seized from the accused's residence during a raid on 03.04.2019, the prosecution relied solely on testimony from one panch (witness) witness, which the court found unreliable without corroborating evidence from other witnesses or scientific examination reports. The court held that a single panch witness's testimony was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the prosecution's failure to produce the investigating officer and other corroborating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused Avinash Narayanrao Chavan of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act due to insufficient evidence. Although illicit liquor (18 liters of country liquor) and related items were seized from the accused's residence during a raid on 03.04.2019, the prosecution relied solely on testimony from one panch (witness) witness, which the court found unreliable without corroborating evidence from other witnesses or scientific examination reports. The court held that a single panch witness's testimony was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the prosecution's failure to produce the investigating officer and other corroborating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts