State Government through P.S.O. Narkhed vs Dinesh Rakhyaji Bawne — 93/2026

Case under Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(a). Disposed: Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG120001192026

e-Filing Number

17-01-2026

Filing Number

115/2026

Filing Date

17-Jan-2026

Registration No

93/2026

Registration Date

17-Jan-2026

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Narkhed

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr Division First Class , Narkhed

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

783

Police Station

P.S.Narkhed

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government through P.S.O. Narkhed

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dinesh Rakhyaji Bawne

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: 93/2026 Dinesh Rakhyaji Bawane, a 36-year-old laborer, was convicted under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 after pleading guilty to gambling charges. The court sentenced him to simple imprisonment until rising of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 200 (with 3 days default imprisonment). Considering his poverty, lack of criminal history, and voluntary guilty plea, the magistrate took a lenient view. Seized cash of Rs. 810 was forfeited to the state, a mobile phone returned to its owner, and gambling materials destroyed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jr Division First Class , Narkhed

  4. 17-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 17-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 93/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 93/2026 Dinesh Rakhyaji Bawane, a 36-year-old laborer, was convicted under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 after pleading guilty to gambling charges. The court sentenced him to simple imprisonment until rising of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 200 (with 3 days default imprisonment). Considering his poverty, lack of criminal history, and voluntary guilty plea, the magistrate took a lenient view. Seized cash of Rs. 810 was forfeited to the state, a mobile phone returned to its owner, and gambling materials destroyed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case