STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs Shrimant Nivrutti Surwase Advocate - Yele B.E. — 181/2019
Case under Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12 A. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHBI160016122019
Filing Number
401/2019
Filing Date
24-09-2019
Registration No
181/2019
Registration Date
24-09-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Shirur
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
116
Police Station
POLICE STATION SHIRUR-K
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Adv. Mane S.T.
Respondent(s)
Shrimant Nivrutti Surwase Advocate - Yele B.E.
Harichandra Govindrao Tandale
Wajir Abdul Pathan
Naim Ismile Beg
Baburao Vitthal Jamdade
Nasir Mahamad Chaus
Narayan Sadhu Parzane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC SHIRUR-K
Disposed
N.B.W._Ready
N.B.W._Ready
N.B.W._Ready
N.B.W._Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-02-2026 | N.B.W._Ready |
| 05-12-2025 | N.B.W._Ready |
| 07-11-2025 | N.B.W._Ready |
| 26-09-2025 | N.B.W._Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: In State vs. Shrimant & Ors. (S.C.C. No. 181/2019), the court stopped proceedings under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code and acquitted accused nos. 1, 3-6 of gambling offenses under the Bombay Gambling Act. The court found that the 7-year-old case had stalled due to prosecution's failure to secure the accused's presence despite multiple non-bailable warrants, insufficient evidence existed for conviction, and continuing the matter served no purpose. Seized items were ordered destroyed or returned accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In State vs. Shrimant & Ors. (S.C.C. No. 181/2019), the court stopped proceedings under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code and acquitted accused nos. 1, 3-6 of gambling offenses under the Bombay Gambling Act. The court found that the 7-year-old case had stalled due to prosecution's failure to secure the accused's presence despite multiple non-bailable warrants, insufficient evidence existed for conviction, and continuing the matter served no purpose. Seized items were ordered destroyed or returned accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts