State of Maharashtra vs Sahid Mahamand Abdulhusen etc 2 Advocate - K. P. Rane — 300311/2012
Case under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act Section 3458. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO030016452012
Filing Number
300311/2012
Filing Date
04-05-2012
Registration No
300311/2012
Registration Date
04-05-2012
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Kolhapur
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Kolhapur
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
154
Police Station
Police Station Shahupuri
Year
2011
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Sahid Mahamand Abdulhusen etc 2 Advocate - K. P. Rane
Smt.Chandrakala Subhash Dixit
Adv. A. P. Bhatiya
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Kolhapur
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 30-01-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal District Court of Kolhapur acquitted accused no. 2 (Chandrakala Subhash Diksit) of charges under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (sections 3, 4, 5, 8), finding insufficient evidence that she conspired with the absconding accused no. 1 to promote prostitution or run a brothel. The court noted critical gaps in the prosecution's case, including lack of eyewitness testimony, absence of the victim witness, and failure to prove the alleged illegal activities through direct or reliable evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Principal District Court of Kolhapur acquitted accused no. 2 (Chandrakala Subhash Diksit) of charges under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (sections 3, 4, 5, 8), finding insufficient evidence that she conspired with the absconding accused no. 1 to promote prostitution or run a brothel. The court noted critical gaps in the prosecution's case, including lack of eyewitness testimony, absence of the victim witness, and failure to prove the alleged illegal activities through direct or reliable evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts