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.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHAH030010132024
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1013/2024
Filing Date
23-01-2024
Registration No
146/2024
Registration Date
23-01-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistarte ,Ahmednagar
Judge
23-Chief Judicial Magistrate
FIR Details
FIR Number
25
Police Station
Cyber Polce Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Yogesh Navnath Kotkar Advocate - Tone S. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 23-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 17-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts