State of Maharashtra PSO, Shegaon City vs Vinod Kashiram Shegokar — 840/2022
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65(e). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHBU070011102021
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
1013/2021
Filing Date
25-06-2021
Registration No
840/2022
Registration Date
25-06-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , shegaon
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Shegaon
FIR Details
FIR Number
245
Police Station
Shegaon
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra PSO, Shegaon City
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Vinod Kashiram Shegokar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Shegaon
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
N.B.W._Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 09-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 14-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-08-2025 | N.B.W._Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary: In FIR No. 840/2022 (Government v. Vinod Shegokar), the Sessions Court at Shegaon recorded the examination of Witness No. 2 (Ambadas Hari Babulkar) on 17.02.2025. The witness testified that police did not take him to the crime scene, did not conduct any search in his presence, and denied signing any panchnama (seizure memo). The court accepted the witness's statement and noted that cross-examination by the accused's counsel was not conducted as the accused's advocate was absent and the accused had no questions for the witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In FIR No. 840/2022 (Government v. Vinod Shegokar), the Sessions Court at Shegaon recorded the examination of Witness No. 2 (Ambadas Hari Babulkar) on 17.02.2025. The witness testified that police did not take him to the crime scene, did not conduct any search in his presence, and denied signing any panchnama (seizure memo). The court accepted the witness's statement and noted that cross-examination by the accused's counsel was not conducted as the accused's advocate was absent and the accused had no questions for the witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts