State Excise Dept. Pusad vs Vimal Prakash Khillare — 1455/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65E,F. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHYA050024102025
Filing Number
2051/2025
Filing Date
23-05-2025
Registration No
1455/2025
Registration Date
23-05-2025
Court
Civil Judge Senior Division Pusad
Judge
16-2nd JT. Civil JudgeJr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Pusad
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Excise Dept. Pusad
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Vimal Prakash Khillare
Hearing History
Judge: 16-2nd JT. Civil JudgeJr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Pusad
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused Nimel Prakash Khillare of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged illegal liquor possession and sale. The court found that while the prosecution proved seizure of liquor from the accused's custody (100-liter drum containing jaggery mash, 18-liter liquor, and materials worth ₹5,820), it failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence—such as chemical analysis reports, independent witness testimony, or documentary proof—to establish that the seized items were intended for sale or that the seized liquid was actually country liquor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused Nimel Prakash Khillare of charges under the Mumbai Prohibition Act Section 65(E) for alleged illegal liquor possession and sale. The court found that while the prosecution proved seizure of liquor from the accused's custody (100-liter drum containing jaggery mash, 18-liter liquor, and materials worth ₹5,820), it failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence—such as chemical analysis reports, independent witness testimony, or documentary proof—to establish that the seized items were intended for sale or that the seized liquid was actually country liquor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts