State of Maharashatra through Police Station Sakharkherda vs Ramesh Konduji Avhale — 169/2026

Case under The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules Section 6(a),24. Disposed: Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHBU190002762026

Filing Number

237/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

169/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Judge Junior Divison and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindhkhed-Raja

Judge

3-2nd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING

Last updated 20-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0089

Police Station

Sakharkherda

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules Section 6(a),24

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashatra through Police Station Sakharkherda

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramesh Konduji Avhale

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court convicted Ramesh Konduji Aavhale for illegally selling tobacco products under section 6(b) r/w 24 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, after he voluntarily pleaded guilty. Considering his age, family responsibilities, and status as sole breadwinner, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine with one day simple imprisonment in default, giving him one opportunity for reform. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Jt. Cjjd and JMFC

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 169/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted Ramesh Konduji Aavhale for illegally selling tobacco products under section 6(b) r/w 24 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, after he voluntarily pleaded guilty. Considering his age, family responsibilities, and status as sole breadwinner, the court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 100 fine with one day simple imprisonment in default, giving him one opportunity for reform. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case