Kailas Dnyaneshwar Khedekar vs State of Maharashtra — 14/2024
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 10th March 2026.
Cri.Appeal
CNR: MHBU010006472024
e-Filing Number
19-05-2024
Filing Number
310/2024
Filing Date
20-05-2024
Registration No
14/2024
Registration Date
20-05-2024
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kailas Dnyaneshwar Khedekar
Adv. Salve D.A
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-1 & Additional Sess.Judge, Buldana.
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 28-01-2026 | Hearing | |
| 22-12-2025 | Hearing | |
| 17-11-2025 | Hearing | |
| 07-10-2025 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Buldhana acquitted the appellant of drunk driving charges under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, finding that the prosecution failed to provide mandatory chemical evidence (breath or blood test) to prove the offense. Although the trial court had convicted him based on circumstantial observations by police officers, the appellate court emphasized that strict proof through proper testing procedures is legally necessary for such convictions. The court set aside the conviction, ordered return of the Rs. 10,000 fine, and acquitted the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Buldhana acquitted the appellant of drunk driving charges under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, finding that the prosecution failed to provide mandatory chemical evidence (breath or blood test) to prove the offense. Although the trial court had convicted him based on circumstantial observations by police officers, the appellate court emphasized that strict proof through proper testing procedures is legally necessary for such convictions. The court set aside the conviction, ordered return of the Rs. 10,000 fine, and acquitted the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts