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

Case disposed

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

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)(f)

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

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

04-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division, Manora All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case