State of Maharashtra Excise Department vs Pandurang Shivaji Shinde — 67/2026
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHSN120001152026
Filing Number
92/2026
Filing Date
30-01-2026
Registration No
67/2026
Registration Date
30-01-2026
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)
Pandurang Shivaji Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C, Palus
Disposed
Arguments
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-01-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted the accused, Pandurang Shivaji Shinde, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for allegedly possessing 27 bottles of illicit liquor for sale. The judge found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence—particularly noting that the sole prosecution witness (a panchnama witness) could not corroborate the seizure details, no chemical analysis report was submitted, and no other witnesses or the investigating officer testified. Due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, the benefit of doubt went to the accused, resulting in his acquittal on March 27, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted the accused, Pandurang Shivaji Shinde, of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E), for allegedly possessing 27 bottles of illicit liquor for sale. The judge found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence—particularly noting that the sole prosecution witness (a panchnama witness) could not corroborate the seizure details, no chemical analysis report was submitted, and no other witnesses or the investigating officer testified. Due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, the benefit of doubt went to the accused, resulting in his acquittal on March 27, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts