State of Maharashtra vs Rama Krushi Rasayan Ltd. Advocate - P. S. Dabhole — 300771/2011
Case under Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act Section 71a2. Status: Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.. Next hearing: 16th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO030022512011
Next Hearing
16th May 2026
Filing Number
300771/2011
Filing Date
12-07-2011
Registration No
300771/2011
Registration Date
12-07-2011
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Kolhapur
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Kolhapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Rama Krushi Rasayan Ltd. Advocate - P. S. Dabhole
Maharashtra Krushi Udyog Vikas Mahamandal Mydt
Adv. -
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Kolhapur
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 30-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 10-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 25-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 06-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Interim Orders
Summary: The complaint filed by Fertilizer Inspector D.B. Ingale against accused No. 2 under the Fertilizers Act was dismissed on 25/07/2019 under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dismissal was ordered because the complainant and his advocate failed to appear in court and did not file any application indicating their intent to proceed against accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 had appeared as required, but no further action was taken against either accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The complaint filed by Fertilizer Inspector D.B. Ingale against accused No. 2 under the Fertilizers Act was dismissed on 25/07/2019 under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dismissal was ordered because the complainant and his advocate failed to appear in court and did not file any application indicating their intent to proceed against accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 had appeared as required, but no further action was taken against either accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts