The State vs Sk Afroz Sk Dastagir Advocate - VA Palsirkar — 300507/2002
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 461379. Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGED on 01st April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHJN030004052002
Filing Number
300507/2002
Filing Date
19-11-2002
Registration No
300507/2002
Registration Date
19-11-2002
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Jalna
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISCHARGED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State
Adv. PP
Respondent(s)
Sk Afroz Sk Dastagir Advocate - VA Palsirkar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Dormant File
Dormant File
Dormant File
Dormant File
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Dormant File |
| 23-03-2026 | Dormant File |
| 16-03-2026 | Dormant File |
| 07-03-2026 | Dormant File |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Shaikh Afroz (RCC 300507/2002) The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged accused Shaikh Afroz under Section 239 CrPC for offences under IPC Sections 461 and 379, citing insufficient evidence and case age. The court found that despite the investigating officer's testimony, critical evidence was lacking: panch witnesses in the seizure panchnama were not examined, the informant was untraceable and not examined, and key witnesses could not be located. The court held that the investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient to prove guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Shaikh Afroz (RCC 300507/2002) The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged accused Shaikh Afroz under Section 239 CrPC for offences under IPC Sections 461 and 379, citing insufficient evidence and case age. The court found that despite the investigating officer's testimony, critical evidence was lacking: panch witnesses in the seizure panchnama were not examined, the informant was untraceable and not examined, and key witnesses could not be located. The court held that the investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient to prove guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts