State of Mahrashtra through Police Station, Manora vs Saralabai Ramkrushna Pawar — 22/2026
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)(f). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHWS090000522026
Filing Number
43/2026
Filing Date
16-01-2026
Registration No
22/2026
Registration Date
16-01-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Manora
Judge
4-Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. dn. and JMFC., Manora
Decision Date
02nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
07
Police Station
P. S. Manora
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Mahrashtra through Police Station, Manora
Respondent(s)
Saralabai Ramkrushna Pawar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. dn. and JMFC., Manora
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 27-02-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 16-01-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted respondent Saralabai Ramkrushna Pawar of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 10 liters of illicit alcohol on 10/10/2026 in Kondoli village, Manora. The prosecution failed to establish its case because the only witness (a panch/notary) could not confirm that the seized substance was actually found in the accused's possession or properly produced before him during the panchnama (seizure documentation). Lacking credible evidence and independent corroborating witnesses or chemical analysis reports, the court found reasonable doubt and discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted respondent Saralabai Ramkrushna Pawar of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for allegedly possessing 10 liters of illicit alcohol on 10/10/2026 in Kondoli village, Manora. The prosecution failed to establish its case because the only witness (a panch/notary) could not confirm that the seized substance was actually found in the accused's possession or properly produced before him during the panchnama (seizure documentation). Lacking credible evidence and independent corroborating witnesses or chemical analysis reports, the court found reasonable doubt 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