State of Maharashtra vs Vasim Shabbir Inamdar Advocate - Zaware B. G. — 135/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,468,471,419,34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHAH150010562018
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1055/2018
Filing Date
04-07-2018
Registration No
135/2018
Registration Date
04-07-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Newasa
Judge
9-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.,Newasa
FIR Details
FIR Number
279
Police Station
Newasa Police Station Newasa
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Vasim Shabbir Inamdar Advocate - Zaware B. G.
Anis Musabhai Shaikh
Adv. Mungse M. B.
Hearing History
Judge: 9-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.,Newasa
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Criminal Case No. 135/2018 – Ahmednagar District Court The court examined testimony from the government witness (Witness No. 3) regarding allegations against two defendants for misappropriating MGNREGA (employment scheme) funds and creating fraudulent job cards in the names of deceased persons. During cross-examination, the defense raised significant inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, and the witness could not substantiate crucial claims regarding documents, fund disbursements, and procedural compliance. The court found the cross-examination of Accused No. 2 (via defense counsel) to be acceptable and concluded the examination with no further re-examination needed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Criminal Case No. 135/2018 – Ahmednagar District Court The court examined testimony from the government witness (Witness No. 3) regarding allegations against two defendants for misappropriating MGNREGA (employment scheme) funds and creating fraudulent job cards in the names of deceased persons. During cross-examination, the defense raised significant inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, and the witness could not substantiate crucial claims regarding documents, fund disbursements, and procedural compliance. The court found the cross-examination of Accused No. 2 (via defense counsel) to be acceptable and concluded the examination with no further re-examination needed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts