State of Maharashtra vs Prashant Balasaheb Gujar Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad — 516/2023
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRT050008512023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
729/2023
Filing Date
21-09-2023
Registration No
516/2023
Registration Date
21-09-2023
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
101
Police Station
State Excise, Khed.
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Prashant Balasaheb Gujar Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 29-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 27-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Case: S.C.C. No. 516/2023 | Court: Joint C.J.J.D. & J.M.F.C. Court, Khed | Date: 17.03.2026 The court acquitted accused Prashant Balasaheb Gujar of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing approximately 65 liters of country-made liquor in two plastic containers, as the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The critical weakness in the prosecution's evidence was the absence of a chemical analysis report confirming the seized substance was actually alcohol, despite witness testimony and recovery documentation being established through panchanama (inspection record). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: S.C.C. No. 516/2023 | Court: Joint C.J.J.D. & J.M.F.C. Court, Khed | Date: 17.03.2026 The court acquitted accused Prashant Balasaheb Gujar of charges under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing approximately 65 liters of country-made liquor in two plastic containers, as the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The critical weakness in the prosecution's evidence was the absence of a chemical analysis report confirming the seized substance was actually alcohol, despite witness testimony and recovery documentation being established through panchanama (inspection record). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts