State of Maharashtra vs Avinash Narayan Chavan Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad — 555/2023

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHRT050009162023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

792/2023

Filing Date

16-10-2023

Registration No

555/2023

Registration Date

16-10-2023

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

262

Police Station

Police Station Khed

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Avinash Narayan Chavan Advocate - Sheth Sameer Sharad

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed

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

10-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Abhinash Narayan Chavan, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged offense of possessing and selling illegal liquor. The prosecution failed to establish its case through the testimony of only two witnesses, as key evidence (including scientific laboratory reports) was not properly substantiated, and the court found critical gaps in the chain of custody and corroborative evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused, Abhinash Narayan Chavan, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged offense of possessing and selling illegal liquor. The prosecution failed to establish its case through the testimony of only two witnesses, as key evidence (including scientific laboratory reports) was not properly substantiated, and the court found critical gaps in the chain of custody and corroborative evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case