State of Maharashtra Excise Department vs Shivaji Vitthal Patil — 513/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHSN120009122025

Filing Number

721/2025

Filing Date

14-Oct-2025

Registration No

513/2025

Registration Date

14-Oct-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Palus

Judge

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

Decision Date

01-Apr-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.Shivaji Vitthal Patil

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The court acquitted Shivaji Vitthal Pail of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized bottles constituted illicit liquor, as the panchnama (seizure document) witness testified inconsistently and the prosecution did not present sufficient corroborating evidence or chemical analysis reports to establish the guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-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

    Filing of Surety

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

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Filing of Surety

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

  7. 28-Nov-2025

    Filing of Surety

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

  8. 14-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 14-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 513/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted Shivaji Vitthal Pail of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized bottles constituted illicit liquor, as the panchnama (seizure document) witness testified inconsistently and the prosecution did not present sufficient corroborating evidence or chemical analysis reports to establish the guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case