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

Case disposed

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

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65(e)

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

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

02-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division, Manora All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case