Excise Department F vs Abhay Ashok Somankar Advocate - Umesh Ghangrekar — 1381/2020

Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e. Disposed: Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Sum Case

CNR: MHNG150018692020

Filing Number

1766/2020

Filing Date

10-Nov-2020

Registration No

1381/2020

Registration Date

10-Nov-2020

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Hingna

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65e

Petitioner(s)

1.Excise Department F

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

1.Abhay Ashok Somankar Advocate - Umesh Ghangrekar

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
10-Mar-2026

Order on ExhibitView PDF

Summary In State vs. Abhay (SCC No. 1381/2020), the court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused under Section 258 of the CrPC for a Prohibition Act offense. The court found that the accused had absconded for over 3 years without trace, the case had been pending for 4 years, and there was significant risk of evidence tampering since the seized chemical was stored for an extended period with no documentation of its custody chain. The pending warrant was recalled and seized items were ordered disposed per rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
10-Mar-2026

Disposed

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
07-Feb-2026

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
24-Dec-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
20-Nov-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
24-Sep-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
18-Aug-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
11-Jul-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
11-Jun-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
23-Apr-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
17-Mar-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
07-Feb-2025

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
21-Dec-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
16-Nov-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
11-Oct-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
30-Aug-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
26-Jul-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
29-Jun-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
04-Apr-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
26-Feb-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
19-Jan-2024

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
13-Dec-2023

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
20-Oct-2023

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
19-Aug-2023

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
28-Jul-2023

Evidence

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
06-Jul-2023

Plea / Particulars

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
12-May-2023

N.B.W._Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
10-Mar-2023

N.B.W._Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
19-Jan-2023

N.B.W._Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
12-Dec-2022

N.B.W._Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
16-Sep-2022

N.B.W._Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
21-Jun-2022

N.B.W._Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
30-Mar-2022

Summons_Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
11-Jan-2022

Summons_Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
14-Oct-2021

Summons_Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
14-Jul-2021

Summons_Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
15-Apr-2021

Summons_Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
13-Jan-2021

Summons_Ready

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
10-Nov-2020

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
10-Nov-2020

Case filed

Registration No. 1381/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In State vs. Abhay (SCC No. 1381/2020), the court stopped proceedings and discharged the accused under Section 258 of the CrPC for a Prohibition Act offense. The court found that the accused had absconded for over 3 years without trace, the case had been pending for 4 years, and there was significant risk of evidence tampering since the seized chemical was stored for an extended period with no documentation of its custody chain. The pending warrant was recalled and seized items were ordered disposed per rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.