State of Maharashtra Excise Department vs Ajit Dattu Chougule — 577/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 01st April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHSN120010262025
Filing Number
811/2025
Filing Date
01-12-2025
Registration No
577/2025
Registration Date
01-12-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Palus
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C, Palus
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Excise Department
Adv. Changan Ravindra Ramdas
Respondent(s)
Ajit Dattu Chougule
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. J.M.F.C, Palus
Disposed
Arguments
Plea / Particulars
Plea / Particulars
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-02-2026 | Plea / Particulars |
| 01-12-2025 | Plea / Particulars |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Palus Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Ajit Dattu Chougule of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor (Royal Satra brand), finding the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including the witness panchnama official's inability to corroborate key details and the absence of chemical analysis reports, scientific evidence, and other credible witnesses to substantiate the seizure proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Palus Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Ajit Dattu Chougule of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor (Royal Satra brand), finding the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps, including the witness panchnama official's inability to corroborate key details and the absence of chemical analysis reports, scientific evidence, and other credible witnesses to substantiate the seizure proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts