State of Maharashtra vs Madan Kappusing Jarwal Advocate - Runwal — 1/2018
Case under Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7,15. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 16th May 2026.
Spl.Case ACB
CNR: MHBU010004802018
Next Hearing
16th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
191/2018
Filing Date
22-03-2018
Registration No
1/2018
Registration Date
22-03-2018
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
FIR Details
FIR Number
272
Police Station
Andhera
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. DGP
Respondent(s)
Madan Kappusing Jarwal Advocate - Runwal
Bhagwan Rama Dhole
Adv. Saoji AM
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 18-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary This is a detailed testimony document from a police inspector in a bribery case (Special Case No. 01/2018, Case No. 104) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The inspector testifies about a trap laid to catch a talathi (village official) allegedly demanding a bribe of ₹2,000 from the complainant for processing a tractor registration. The witness describes the pre-trap and post-trap panchnama (formal record), voice recording procedures, anthracene powder marking of currency notes, and subsequent arrest of both accused. The case concludes with a cross-examination where the defense raised multiple denials and contradictions regarding the investigation procedures and evidence collection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary This is a detailed testimony document from a police inspector in a bribery case (Special Case No. 01/2018, Case No. 104) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The inspector testifies about a trap laid to catch a talathi (village official) allegedly demanding a bribe of ₹2,000 from the complainant for processing a tractor registration. The witness describes the pre-trap and post-trap panchnama (formal record), voice recording procedures, anthracene powder marking of currency notes, and subsequent arrest of both accused. The case concludes with a cross-examination where the defense raised multiple denials and contradictions regarding the investigation procedures and evidence collection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts