State of Maharashtra thr. Pl. St. Radhanagari vs Vikram Dattatraya Patil — 71/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 185. Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHKO190001422026

Filing Number

94/2026

Filing Date

14-Mar-2026

Registration No

71/2026

Registration Date

14-Mar-2026

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari

Judge

5-Jt. Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOKADALAT

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

407

Police Station

Radhanagari Polilce Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 185

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra thr. Pl. St. Radhanagari

    Adv. A. P. P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vikram Dattatraya Patil

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Dattatray Patil (71/2026) Vikram Dattatray Patil was convicted under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol on 31/12/2025. The accused voluntarily pleaded guilty before the National Lok Adalat, citing poor financial condition and family dependence. The court accepted the guilty plea and imposed lenient punishment: a fine of Rs. 2,000 with 2 days simple imprisonment in default, citing the accused's voluntary confession, absence of prior criminal record, and financial hardship. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jt. Cjjd and JMFC Radhanagari

  4. 14-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 71/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Dattatray Patil (71/2026) Vikram Dattatray Patil was convicted under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol on 31/12/2025. The accused voluntarily pleaded guilty before the National Lok Adalat, citing poor financial condition and family dependence. The court accepted the guilty plea and imposed lenient punishment: a fine of Rs. 2,000 with 2 days simple imprisonment in default, citing the accused's voluntary confession, absence of prior criminal record, and financial hardship. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case