State of Maharashtra vs Gajanan Ramaji Gaurkhede Advocate - Dhande D. M. — 157/2024

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(a), 65(e), 77(a). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 24th March 2026.

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

CNR: MHWR090002432024

Case disposed

Filing Number

215/2024

Filing Date

11-03-2024

Registration No

157/2024

Registration Date

11-03-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Karanja

Judge

1-C.J.J.D.-J.M.F.C. Karanja Gh.

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Acts & Sections

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(a), 65(e), 77(a)

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Gajanan Ramaji Gaurkhede Advocate - Dhande D. M.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-C.J.J.D.-J.M.F.C. Karanja Gh.

24-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

22-01-2026

Evidence

27-11-2025

Evidence

29-09-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted defendant Gajanan Gourkhed of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (Sections 65(E) and 77(A)) for alleged possession of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case because the two panch witnesses did not corroborate the seizure of 20 liters of country liquor and four bottles of branded alcohol from the accused's possession—they testified no panchnama was prepared and police did not conduct the seizure in their presence. Since the seized contraband could not be independently proven to have come from the accused's custody, the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted defendant Gajanan Gourkhed of charges under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (Sections 65(E) and 77(A)) for alleged possession of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case because the two panch witnesses did not corroborate the seizure of 20 liters of country liquor and four bottles of branded alcohol from the accused's possession—they testified no panchnama was prepared and police did not conduct the seizure in their presence. Since the seized contraband could not be independently proven to have come from the accused's custody, the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. 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 , Karanja All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case