State of Maharashtra vs Suresh Rumaji Nikam Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad — 206/2020
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65E,F. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRT050003972020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
346/2020
Filing Date
23-07-2020
Registration No
206/2020
Registration Date
23-07-2020
Court
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed
Judge
2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
State Excise, Khed.
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Suresh Rumaji Nikam Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 17-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted Suresh Rumaaji Nikam of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E)(F), for allegedly possessing large quantities of illicit alcohol and brewing equipment found during a raid on 17 January 2020. Although the prosecution presented evidence of seized materials including plastic tanks, barrels, and homemade liquor, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing gaps in witness testimony and the absence of key corroborating witnesses at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted Suresh Rumaaji Nikam of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E)(F), for allegedly possessing large quantities of illicit alcohol and brewing equipment found during a raid on 17 January 2020. Although the prosecution presented evidence of seized materials including plastic tanks, barrels, and homemade liquor, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing gaps in witness testimony and the absence of key corroborating witnesses at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts