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
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
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
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, 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.
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
Explore other courts