State of Maharashtra - P.I. Police Station, Sirsala vs Ramesh Kundlik Lahane Advocate - Kawade A.B. — 8/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 328,272,273,188. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd May 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHBI040001962025
Filing Number
153/2025
Filing Date
01-03-2025
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
01-03-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Ambajogai
Judge
2-District Judge-1 Addl.Sessions JudgeAmbajogai.
Decision Date
02nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
79
Police Station
Sirsala Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra - P.I. Police Station, Sirsala
Adv. Phad D.M.
Respondent(s)
Ramesh Kundlik Lahane Advocate - Kawade A.B.
Sartaj Shahebajkhan Pathan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Judge-1 Addl.Sessions JudgeAmbajogai.
Disposed
Citation
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Citation |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 12-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Session Court at Ambajogai acquitted both accused Ramesh Lahane and Sartaj Pathan of charges under IPC sections 272, 273, 328, 188 and Food Safety & Standards Act section 26(2)(iv). The court found insufficient evidence linking the accused to the seized contraband gutka/tobacco worth Rs. 7,464, noting the accused fled before police arrival, no direct observation of possession, and failure to establish shop ownership or obtain proper documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Session Court at Ambajogai acquitted both accused Ramesh Lahane and Sartaj Pathan of charges under IPC sections 272, 273, 328, 188 and Food Safety & Standards Act section 26(2)(iv). The court found insufficient evidence linking the accused to the seized contraband gutka/tobacco worth Rs. 7,464, noting the accused fled before police arrival, no direct observation of possession, and failure to establish shop ownership or obtain proper documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts