STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs Ganesh Shrimantrao Mane Advocate - Lange S.A. — 111/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 286. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHBI170004602019
Filing Number
220/2019
Filing Date
22-07-2019
Registration No
111/2019
Registration Date
22-07-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Wadwani
Judge
1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC WADWANI
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Ganesh Shrimantrao Mane Advocate - Lange S.A.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC WADWANI
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 29-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Wadwani, Beed district acquitted the accused Ganesh Shrimantrao Mane on March 12, 2026, of charges under IPC Section 286 (rash or negligent act endangering human life) for alleged illegal possession of explosive firecrackers. The court found that while explosive materials were recovered from the accused's possession, the prosecution failed to prove the seizure through proper panchnama (official record) and could not establish that the materials were indeed in the accused's custody, as the panchnama witness did not appear for examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Wadwani, Beed district acquitted the accused Ganesh Shrimantrao Mane on March 12, 2026, of charges under IPC Section 286 (rash or negligent act endangering human life) for alleged illegal possession of explosive firecrackers. The court found that while explosive materials were recovered from the accused's possession, the prosecution failed to prove the seizure through proper panchnama (official record) and could not establish that the materials were indeed in the accused's custody, as the panchnama witness did not appear for examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts