The State of Maharashtra vs Arun Dilip Savde and 1 Advocate - DANDGE M. K. — 121/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHJN070007572019
Filing Number
522/2019
Filing Date
06-08-2019
Registration No
121/2019
Registration Date
13-08-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Jafarabad
Judge
6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
12
Police Station
Tembhurni
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Arun Dilip Savde and 1 Advocate - DANDGE M. K.
Babasaheb Baburao Savde
Adv. KASHTE V.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Defence Evidence
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 04-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: RCC 121/2019, State of Maharashtra v. Arun Dilip Savde & Babasaheb Baburao Savde The court acquitted both accused of theft charges under IPC Section 379/34, finding the prosecution proved motor pumps were stolen but failed to establish the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt. While witnesses confirmed six pumps went missing from agricultural fields and were later recovered abandoned, the investigating officer admitted no stolen property was seized from the accused, and no eyewitness identified them as perpetrators. The court held that suspicion alone cannot substitute proof in criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCC 121/2019, State of Maharashtra v. Arun Dilip Savde & Babasaheb Baburao Savde The court acquitted both accused of theft charges under IPC Section 379/34, finding the prosecution proved motor pumps were stolen but failed to establish the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt. While witnesses confirmed six pumps went missing from agricultural fields and were later recovered abandoned, the investigating officer admitted no stolen property was seized from the accused, and no eyewitness identified them as perpetrators. The court held that suspicion alone cannot substitute proof in criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts