State of Mahrashtra through Police Station, Manora vs Sharada Sanjay Shinde — 479/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHWS090007582025
Filing Number
661/2025
Filing Date
04-07-2025
Registration No
479/2025
Registration Date
04-07-2025
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
416
Police Station
P. S. Manora
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Mahrashtra through Police Station, Manora
Respondent(s)
Sharada Sanjay Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. dn. and JMFC., Manora
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
B.W._Ready
B.W._Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-01-2026 | B.W._Ready |
| 21-11-2025 | B.W._Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 479/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted respondent Sharada Sanjay Shinde of charges under Section 65(E) of the Mumbai Prohibition Act and Section 278 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence—the sole prosecution witness did not testify that the seized substance was prepared in the accused's presence, rendering the seizure memo unreliable. Without independent eyewitness testimony or chemical analysis reports corroborating that the seized substance was liquor in the accused's possession, the conviction could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 479/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted respondent Sharada Sanjay Shinde of charges under Section 65(E) of the Mumbai Prohibition Act and Section 278 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence—the sole prosecution witness did not testify that the seized substance was prepared in the accused's presence, rendering the seizure memo unreliable. Without independent eyewitness testimony or chemical analysis reports corroborating that the seized substance was liquor in the accused's possession, the conviction could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts