State of Maharashtra Excise Department vs Lahu Dagadu Kamble — 369/2025

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

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

CNR: MHSN120006952025

Case disposed

Filing Number

536/2025

Filing Date

11-08-2025

Registration No

369/2025

Registration Date

11-08-2025

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. Patil Suvarna Vilas

Respondent(s)

Lahu Dagadu Kamble

Hearing History

Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C, Palus

27-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Arguments

03-02-2026

Hearing

28-11-2025

Hearing

10-11-2025

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palus acquitted defendant Lahu Dargud Kamble of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 27 bottles of illicit alcohol for sale. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt—the panchnama (seizure record) was not properly conducted before the mandated witness, and no credible testimonial evidence supported the allegations. The court applied the benefit of doubt principle, acquitting the defendant and ordering return of seized assets after appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palus acquitted defendant Lahu Dargud Kamble of charges under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 27 bottles of illicit alcohol for sale. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt—the panchnama (seizure record) was not properly conducted before the mandated witness, and no credible testimonial evidence supported the allegations. The court applied the benefit of doubt principle, acquitting the defendant and ordering return of seized assets 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