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

Evidence Part Heard

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 379
ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT Section 3,15

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

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

12-11-2025
Charge
02-02-2026
Evidence

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Pathardi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case