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.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHSN120001152026

Filing Number

92/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

67/2026

Registration Date

30-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.Pandurang Shivaji Shinde

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  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. 30-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 67/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case