The State of Maharashtra Through Excise Inspector Washim. vs Mahadev Bapurao Pawane Advocate - KHAN TAHSEEN AHMAD — 23/2026
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e)(f). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHWS090000532026
Filing Number
44/2026
Filing Date
16-01-2026
Registration No
23/2026
Registration Date
16-01-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Manora
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Manora
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
90
Police Station
Excise Inspector Washim
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra Through Excise Inspector Washim.
Respondent(s)
Mahadev Bapurao Pawane Advocate - KHAN TAHSEEN AHMAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Manora
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 07-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted the accused, Mahadev Bapurao Pawane, of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E) for illegal possession of 40 liters of country liquor and 900 liters of molasses. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, having examined only one witness whose testimony was insufficient and not corroborated by chemical analysis reports or proper panchnama evidence. Consequently, the accused was discharged under CrPC Section 278, personal and surety bonds were cancelled, and seized goods ordered destroyed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted the accused, Mahadev Bapurao Pawane, of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E) for illegal possession of 40 liters of country liquor and 900 liters of molasses. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, having examined only one witness whose testimony was insufficient and not corroborated by chemical analysis reports or proper panchnama evidence. Consequently, the accused was discharged under CrPC Section 278, personal and surety bonds were cancelled, and seized goods ordered destroyed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts