State of Maharashtra. vs Panjabrao Jagdeo Jadhao — 732/2022
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65a,e. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE on 11th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHBU060015992022
Filing Number
1592/2022
Filing Date
05-Jul-2022
Registration No
732/2022
Registration Date
05-Jul-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , khamgaon
Judge
2-2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE
Last updated 20-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Panjabrao Jagdeo Jadhao
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Order on Exhibit
-
11-Mar-2026
Order on Exhibit
Summary: The Judicial Magistrate at Khamgaon discharged accused Panjabrao Jadhav under Section 258 of the CrPC in a 4-year-old case involving alleged violation of Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The court found the prosecution's case infructuous as it had neither filed a Competency Report (C.A. report) nor examined witnesses despite sufficient opportunities, making further proceedings futile. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
10-Mar-2026
Appearance
2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
30-Jan-2026
Appearance
2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
08-Aug-2025
Appearance
Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
11-Nov-2024
Appearance
2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
28-May-2024
Appearance
2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
09-Nov-2023
Appearance
2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
29-Mar-2023
Appearance
2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.m.f.c., Khamgaon
-
21-Sep-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Jul-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 732/2022
Summary: The Judicial Magistrate at Khamgaon discharged accused Panjabrao Jadhav under Section 258 of the CrPC in a 4-year-old case involving alleged violation of Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The court found the prosecution's case infructuous as it had neither filed a Competency Report (C.A. report) nor examined witnesses despite sufficient opportunities, making further proceedings futile. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts