State of Maharashtra vs Atul Ashok Jadhav Advocate - Sachin S. Patil — 630/2024
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 66(B). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 11th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO170009622024
Next Hearing
11th May 2026
Filing Number
787/2024
Filing Date
06-08-2024
Registration No
630/2024
Registration Date
06-08-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Panhala
Judge
3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
FIR Details
FIR Number
148
Police Station
Kodoli Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Atul Ashok Jadhav Advocate - Sachin S. Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Panhala
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 04-03-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary State v. Atul Ashok Jadav (FIR No. 630/2024) — This is a proceeding record from Panhala Court dated 22.04.2026 documenting witness examination in a liquor seizure case. Government witness Shankar Rajaram Patil testified about a panchnama (official seizure document) prepared on 21.05.2024 when alleged illicit liquor consumption was discovered near a meat market in Kodoli; the witness confirmed his signature on the seizure record. The cross-examination by the accused's counsel was rejected, and the witness statement was accepted by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary State v. Atul Ashok Jadav (FIR No. 630/2024) — This is a proceeding record from Panhala Court dated 22.04.2026 documenting witness examination in a liquor seizure case. Government witness Shankar Rajaram Patil testified about a panchnama (official seizure document) prepared on 21.05.2024 when alleged illicit liquor consumption was discovered near a meat market in Kodoli; the witness confirmed his signature on the seizure record. The cross-examination by the accused's counsel was rejected, and the witness statement was accepted by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts