State of Maharashtra Excise Department vs Abhijit Tukaram Aawate — 34/2026

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHSN120000652026

Filing Number

50/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

34/2026

Registration Date

16-Jan-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Palus

Judge

1-CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.m.f.c, Palus

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 05-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Excise Department

    Adv. Changan Ravindra Ramdas

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Abhijit Tukaram Aawate

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Palus First Class Magistrate's Court acquitted Abhijit Tukaram Awte of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for alleged unauthorized possession and sale of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole panch witness contradicted the prosecution's narrative and the seizure procedure lacked credible corroboration. Consequently, the accused was ordered to be discharged, with seized liquor to be disposed of per regulations and cash security refunded after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.m.f.c, Palus

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.m.f.c, Palus

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    CIVIL Judge Jr. Dn. J.m.f.c, Palus

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 34/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Palus First Class Magistrate's Court acquitted Abhijit Tukaram Awte of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for alleged unauthorized possession and sale of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole panch witness contradicted the prosecution's narrative and the seizure procedure lacked credible corroboration. Consequently, the accused was ordered to be discharged, with seized liquor to be disposed of per regulations and cash security refunded after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case