The State of Maharashtra vs Arif Shamshuddin Shaikh Advocate - Jadhav Deepak Suresh — 900010/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGED on 23rd March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHPU070000102015
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
900010/2015
Filing Date
19-01-2015
Registration No
900010/2015
Registration Date
19-01-2015
Court
Railway Court,Pune
Judge
1-J.M.F.C. Railway CourtPune
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISCHARGED
FIR Details
FIR Number
194
Police Station
G.R.P. Police Station Pune
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Arif Shamshuddin Shaikh Advocate - Jadhav Deepak Suresh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-J.M.F.C. Railway CourtPune
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 11-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Railway Court, Pune discharged accused Arif Shamshuddin Shaikh from theft charges (IPC Section 379) after the case remained pending for 10 years due to his absconding. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of theft, particularly the ownership of the stolen wallet and dishonest intent, as the complainant (the key witness) was not produced before the court. The seized cash of Rs. 1,200 was ordered to be returned to the informant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Railway Court, Pune discharged accused Arif Shamshuddin Shaikh from theft charges (IPC Section 379) after the case remained pending for 10 years due to his absconding. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of theft, particularly the ownership of the stolen wallet and dishonest intent, as the complainant (the key witness) was not produced before the court. The seized cash of Rs. 1,200 was ordered to be returned to the informant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts