State Government Thorug P.S.O. Jalalkheda vs Chandrashekhar Tukaram Jane — 388/2026

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: MHNG120005452026

e-Filing Number

10-03-2026

Filing Number

480/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

388/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-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

48

Police Station

P.S.Jalalkheda

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government Thorug P.S.O. Jalalkheda

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chandrashekhar Tukaram Jane

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case 388/2026 Summary Chandrashekhar Tukaram Jane was convicted under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 for gambling offences. He pleaded guilty voluntarily after understanding the charges in Marathi. The court sentenced him to simple imprisonment till rising of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 200 (with 3 days imprisonment in default), taking a lenient view due to his poverty and lack of prior criminal record. 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. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 388/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 388/2026 Summary Chandrashekhar Tukaram Jane was convicted under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 for gambling offences. He pleaded guilty voluntarily after understanding the charges in Marathi. The court sentenced him to simple imprisonment till rising of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 200 (with 3 days imprisonment in default), taking a lenient view due to his poverty and lack of prior criminal record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case