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
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
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.
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts