The State of Maharashtra vs Yogesh Navnath Kotkar Advocate - Tone S. S. — 146/2024

Case under Information Technology Act Section 43,66(C). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.

Evidence Part Heard Next hearing 20-Apr-2026 this date has passed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHAH030010132024

Filing Number

1013/2024

Filing Date

23-Jan-2024

Registration No

146/2024

Registration Date

23-Jan-2024

Court

Chief Judicial Magistarte ,Ahmednagar

Judge

23-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

25

Police Station

Cyber Polce Station

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Information Technology Act Section 43,66(C)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Yogesh Navnath Kotkar Advocate - Tone S. S.

Case History

  1. 20-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

    Case Summary In this Ahmednagar criminal case (FIR No. 146/2024), the court examined testimony from a Reliance Jio employee (witness) and ruling on admissibility of evidence including call detail records (CDR), Section 65-B certificates, and tower location data. The court rejected the accused's objections to these documents on technical grounds, holding that evidence obtained per police requisition letter (Exhibit 33) and properly authenticated with witness signatures and company seals is admissible, despite not being explicitly listed in the FIR petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 17-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 06-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 01-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  11. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 20-Sep-2025

    EvidenceView PDF

  13. 20-Sep-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  14. 30-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  15. 02-Aug-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 05-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 21-Jun-2025

    EvidenceView PDF

  18. 21-Jun-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 19-Apr-2025

    EvidenceView PDF

  20. 19-Apr-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 29-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 01-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 18-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 30-Nov-2024

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 05-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 31-Aug-2024

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  27. 26-Jul-2024

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 20-Jun-2024

    Charge

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 24-Apr-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  30. 15-Mar-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  31. 31-Jan-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 23-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 146/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary In this Ahmednagar criminal case (FIR No. 146/2024), the court examined testimony from a Reliance Jio employee (witness) and ruling on admissibility of evidence including call detail records (CDR), Section 65-B certificates, and tower location data. The court rejected the accused's objections to these documents on technical grounds, holding that evidence obtained per police requisition letter (Exhibit 33) and properly authenticated with witness signatures and company seals is admissible, despite not being explicitly listed in the FIR petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case