Shivalingesh Durgappa Madar vs Malatesh Ningappa Gumakar — 6/2019
Case under Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7,13(1)(D),r/w 13(2). Status: trial. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
SPL.C(SVC) - SVC CASES
CNR: KAHV010023102019
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
7/2019
Filing Date
12-07-2019
Registration No
6/2019
Registration Date
12-07-2019
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI
Judge
572-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shivalingesh Durgappa Madar
Adv. P P Haveri
Respondent(s)
Malatesh Ningappa Gumakar
Hearing History
Judge: 572-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
trial
F.D.T.
trial
trial
F.D.T.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | trial |
| 13-02-2026 | F.D.T. |
| 12-02-2026 | trial |
| 31-12-2025 | trial |
| 12-12-2025 | F.D.T. |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: Spl. SVC No.6/2019 PW-3 Date: 12/09/2025 The court examined witness testimony in this special case. The defense counsel challenged the credibility of the prosecution witness (PW-3), arguing that the witness did not actually visit the ARP office, did not see the accused, and that police fabricated documents without the witness's presence. The court rejected these arguments as false, finding the witness's testimony regarding visits to the office, police procedures, and documentary evidence to be credible. No further cross-examination was permitted, and the witness statement was admitted into the court record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: Spl. SVC No.6/2019 PW-3 Date: 12/09/2025 The court examined witness testimony in this special case. The defense counsel challenged the credibility of the prosecution witness (PW-3), arguing that the witness did not actually visit the ARP office, did not see the accused, and that police fabricated documents without the witness's presence. The court rejected these arguments as false, finding the witness's testimony regarding visits to the office, police procedures, and documentary evidence to be credible. No further cross-examination was permitted, and the witness statement was admitted into the court record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts