The State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Asegaon vs Kondu Udebhan Malle — 16/2026

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 15th May 2026.

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

CNR: MHWS090000342026

Case disposed

Filing Number

29/2026

Filing Date

12-01-2026

Registration No

16/2026

Registration Date

12-01-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Manora

Judge

4-Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. dn. and JMFC., Manora

Decision Date

15th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

351

Police Station

P.S. Asegaon

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Asegaon

Respondent(s)

Kondu Udebhan Malle

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. dn. and JMFC., Manora

15-05-2026

Disposed

12-05-2026

Arguments

04-05-2026

Arguments

29-04-2026

Arguments

20-04-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

15-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: 16/2026 The State of Maharashtra vs. Kondu Udebhan Malle Decision: The court acquitted the accused Kondu Udebhan Malle of charges under Section 65(E) of the Mumbai Prohibition Act and Section 278 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the only witness—a panchnama official—could not credibly confirm that the seized substance (05 liters) was recovered from the accused's possession. Without corroborating evidence or chemical analysis reports linking the substance to the accused, the court held the evidence insufficient for conviction and discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 16/2026 The State of Maharashtra vs. Kondu Udebhan Malle Decision: The court acquitted the accused Kondu Udebhan Malle of charges under Section 65(E) of the Mumbai Prohibition Act and Section 278 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the only witness—a panchnama official—could not credibly confirm that the seized substance (05 liters) was recovered from the accused's possession. Without corroborating evidence or chemical analysis reports linking the substance to the accused, the court held the evidence insufficient for conviction and discharged the accused. 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, Manora All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case