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

Case disposed

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

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)(f)

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

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

02-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division, Manora All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case