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
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
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
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 29-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts