State of Maharashtra Through Po. St. Ural vs Sadik Ahemad Sk. Jabir Ahemad Advocate - Jamode N.N. — 192/2017
Case under Animal Preservation Act ( Maharashtra ) Section 5a,6,9. Status: Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHAK070011892017
Next Hearing
15th April 2026
Filing Number
1030/2017
Filing Date
13-12-2017
Registration No
192/2017
Registration Date
13-12-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Balapur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. Balapur.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Po. St. Ural
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Sadik Ahemad Sk. Jabir Ahemad Advocate - Jamode N.N.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. Balapur.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 03-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a criminal court order (Case No. 192/2017) from Balapur, Maharashtra, dated January 21, 2026, involving a police witness (PW-7) testifying in a cattle seizure case. The witness, a retired police officer, provided detailed testimony about the seizure of six bulls allegedly intended for slaughter, with panchnama (official record) prepared as evidence. During cross-examination, the defense challenged the investigation's credibility, questioning the witness's failure to obtain ownership documents and proper procedure, though the witness denied conducting a faulty investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a criminal court order (Case No. 192/2017) from Balapur, Maharashtra, dated January 21, 2026, involving a police witness (PW-7) testifying in a cattle seizure case. The witness, a retired police officer, provided detailed testimony about the seizure of six bulls allegedly intended for slaughter, with panchnama (official record) prepared as evidence. During cross-examination, the defense challenged the investigation's credibility, questioning the witness's failure to obtain ownership documents and proper procedure, though the witness denied conducting a faulty investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts