The State of Maharashtra vs Mahesh Baban Dhole Advocate - Ekshinge K. S. — 262/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHAH200008862022
Next Hearing
07th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
678/2022
Filing Date
06-05-2022
Registration No
262/2022
Registration Date
06-05-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pathardi
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C PATHARDI
FIR Details
FIR Number
584
Police Station
PATHARDI POLICE STN.PATHARDI
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Mahesh Baban Dhole Advocate - Ekshinge K. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C PATHARDI
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 12-11-2025 | Hearing | |
| 09-07-2025 | Awaiting Summons | |
| 09-04-2025 | Awaiting Summons |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: Regular FIR Case No. 262/2022, Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar District Outcome: The cross-examination of witness No. 1 (police officer Narayana Dattatray Bade) has been completed. The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness's testimony regarding the seizure of a tractor allegedly involved in illegal sand mining. The witness admitted under cross-examination that he could not provide details about the vehicle used, the panchas' identities, or confirm actual observation of illegal mining activities. The court recorded these discrepancies and accepted the defense submissions challenging the credibility of the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: Regular FIR Case No. 262/2022, Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar District Outcome: The cross-examination of witness No. 1 (police officer Narayana Dattatray Bade) has been completed. The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness's testimony regarding the seizure of a tractor allegedly involved in illegal sand mining. The witness admitted under cross-examination that he could not provide details about the vehicle used, the panchas' identities, or confirm actual observation of illegal mining activities. The court recorded these discrepancies and accepted the defense submissions challenging the credibility of the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts