State of Maharashtra Excise Department vs Manik Devappa Sathe — 32/2026
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHSN120000632026
Filing Number
48/2026
Filing Date
16-01-2026
Registration No
32/2026
Registration Date
16-01-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Palus
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C, Palus
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Excise Department
Adv. Changan Ravindra Ramdas
Respondent(s)
Manik Devappa Sathe
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C, Palus
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 16-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 16-01-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Palus First Class Judicial Magistrate court acquitted accused Manik Devappa Sathe of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 36 bottles of illicit liquor, finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including that the panchnama (seizure record) witness testified he was not present during the alleged seizure and had no knowledge of the purported seized items, and no chemical analysis or corroborating witness statements were produced by the prosecution. Consequently, the court granted the accused unconditional acquittal with directions for proper disposal of seized materials after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Palus First Class Judicial Magistrate court acquitted accused Manik Devappa Sathe of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 36 bottles of illicit liquor, finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including that the panchnama (seizure record) witness testified he was not present during the alleged seizure and had no knowledge of the purported seized items, and no chemical analysis or corroborating witness statements were produced by the prosecution. Consequently, the court granted the accused unconditional acquittal with directions for proper disposal of seized materials after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts