State of Maharashtra vs Pralhad Dhondu Gaikwad Advocate - Saoji SA — 3/2025
Case under Anti-corruption Laws (amendment) Act Section 7,7(A),12. Status: Awaiting Muddemal. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
Spl.Case
CNR: MHBU010000852025
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
47/2025
Filing Date
14-01-2025
Registration No
3/2025
Registration Date
14-01-2025
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
8-District Judge-2 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
FIR Details
FIR Number
639
Police Station
Buldana
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP Sonali Saoji
Respondent(s)
Pralhad Dhondu Gaikwad Advocate - Saoji SA
Gajanan Sukhdeo More
Adv. Saoji SA
Jitendra Pralhad Hiwale
Adv. Saoji SA
Rahul Vishnu Jadhao
Adv. Saoji SA
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District Judge-2 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
Awaiting Muddemal
Hearing Before Charge
Hearing Before Charge
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal | |
| 10-03-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal | |
| 16-01-2026 | Awaiting Muddemal | |
| 22-12-2025 | Hearing Before Charge | |
| 21-11-2025 | Hearing Before Charge |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the accused's objection to framing of charges in this Prevention of Corruption Act case. Although sanction from the appropriate authority was refused for charges under Section 7, the court held that sanction is not required for prosecution under Sections 7-A and 12 of the Act, citing Supreme Court precedent. The matter has been kept for framing of charge against the accused persons for offences under Sections 7-A and 12. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the accused's objection to framing of charges in this Prevention of Corruption Act case. Although sanction from the appropriate authority was refused for charges under Section 7, the court held that sanction is not required for prosecution under Sections 7-A and 12 of the Act, citing Supreme Court precedent. The matter has been kept for framing of charge against the accused persons for offences under Sections 7-A and 12. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts