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

Case disposed

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

MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT Section 65E,F

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

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

24-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Judge Senior Division Pusad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case