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

Case disposed

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

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

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

27-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Hearing

16-02-2026

Hearing

16-01-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division, Palus All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case