State of Maharashtra Excise Departmet vs Anil Manik Gujale — 549/2025

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: MHSN120009912025

Filing Number

778/2025

Filing Date

20-Nov-2025

Registration No

549/2025

Registration Date

20-Nov-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 Departmet

    Adv. Changan Ravindra Ramdas

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Anil Manik Gujale

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    SUMMARY The Palus First Class Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Anil Manik Gujale of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing and selling illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole prosecution witness (panchnama witness) did not corroborate the seizure and the required chemical analysis report was absent. 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. 20-Jan-2026

    Filing of Surety

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

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Filing of Surety

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

  8. 20-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 20-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 549/2025

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Palus First Class Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Anil Manik Gujale of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing and selling illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole prosecution witness (panchnama witness) did not corroborate the seizure and the required chemical analysis report was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case