State Government Thorug P.S.O. Jalalkheda vs Umesh Bapuraoji Wankhade — 1279/2025

Case under Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 84. Disposed: Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG120020262025

Filing Number

1717/2025

Filing Date

12-Dec-2025

Registration No

1279/2025

Registration Date

12-Dec-2025

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

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 84

Petitioner(s)

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

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Umesh Bapuraoji Wankhade

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary: 1279/2025 The Judicial Magistrate convicted Umesh Bapuraoji Wankhede for violating Section 84 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, after he voluntarily pleaded guilty. The court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default), considering his financial hardship, lack of prior criminal record, and the nature of the offense. 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. 15-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge Jr Division First Class , Narkhed

  5. 13-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    Civil Judge Jr Division First Class , Narkhed

  6. 12-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 12-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1279/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1279/2025 The Judicial Magistrate convicted Umesh Bapuraoji Wankhede for violating Section 84 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, after he voluntarily pleaded guilty. The court imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 200 fine (or 3 days simple imprisonment in default), considering his financial hardship, lack of prior criminal record, and the nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case