The State Of Maharashtra through Excise Office Kudal no. 03 vs Kashiram Vithaba Salgaonkar Advocate - JADHAV S. K. — 95/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Status: Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHSI070002532025
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
165/2025
Filing Date
16-06-2025
Registration No
95/2025
Registration Date
16-06-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
FIR Details
FIR Number
62
Police Station
Excise Office Kudal
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Of Maharashtra through Excise Office Kudal no. 03
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Kashiram Vithaba Salgaonkar Advocate - JADHAV S. K.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary In Case No. 95/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate in Malvan, Maharashtra, the court examined testimony in a liquor excise violation case against accused Kashinath Vitthoba Salgaonkar. The court conducted a counter-examination of the prosecution witness (Inspector) and found significant procedural irregularities and evidentiary weaknesses in the investigation, including failure to properly document product details, lack of proper panchnama procedures, and discrepancies in the chain of custody. The counter-examination was completed and no further examination was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In Case No. 95/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate in Malvan, Maharashtra, the court examined testimony in a liquor excise violation case against accused Kashinath Vitthoba Salgaonkar. The court conducted a counter-examination of the prosecution witness (Inspector) and found significant procedural irregularities and evidentiary weaknesses in the investigation, including failure to properly document product details, lack of proper panchnama procedures, and discrepancies in the chain of custody. The counter-examination was completed and no further examination was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts