State of Maharashtra vs Sitaram Baban Khartode Advocate - Sangle Dattatray Sadaba — 246/2020

Case under Indian Forest Act Section 26(1),D,F,H,63K,65A. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 18th April 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 18-Apr-2026 this date has passed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHPU170015202020

Filing Number

1234/2020

Filing Date

14-Oct-2020

Registration No

246/2020

Registration Date

14-Oct-2020

Court

Civil Court,Indapur

Judge

2-4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

Last updated 06-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Forest Act Section 26(1),D,F,H,63K,65A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. App

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sitaram Baban Khartode Advocate - Sangle Dattatray Sadaba

Case History

  1. 18-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  3. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  4. 01-Nov-2025

    EvidenceView PDF

    Summary: In FIR No. 246/2020 against Sitaram Khartoде, a forest guard testified that on 23/03/2017, he found a 465-meter long, 2-meter wide pipe with a 5-inch diameter diameter pipe laid in Forest Plot No. 1575 in Indapur taluka. During cross-examination, the defense counsel challenged the authenticity of the evidence, arguing that no documentary proof was provided to establish the pipe belonged to the accused. The court found the prosecution case lacks substantive evidence and accordingly dismissed the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 01-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  6. 20-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  7. 21-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  8. 05-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  9. 15-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  10. 18-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  11. 01-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  12. 16-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  13. 25-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  14. 25-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    4th Jt. Cjjd and JMFC, Indapur

  15. 10-May-2024

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  16. 04-May-2024

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  17. 20-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  18. 06-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  19. 30-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  20. 06-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  21. 07-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  22. 01-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  23. 01-Apr-2023

    N.B.W._Unready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  24. 21-Jan-2023

    N.B.W._Unready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  25. 19-Dec-2022

    B.W._Unready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  26. 24-Aug-2022

    B.W._Unready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  27. 25-Apr-2022

    B.W._Unready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  28. 25-Feb-2022

    Notice_Unready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  29. 24-Nov-2021

    Notice_Unready

    2nd Jt Civil Judge Junior Division Indapur

  30. 20-Aug-2021

    Notice_Unready

    Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur

  31. 20-Mar-2021

    Notice_Unready

    Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur

  32. 30-Dec-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 14-Oct-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 246/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In FIR No. 246/2020 against Sitaram Khartoде, a forest guard testified that on 23/03/2017, he found a 465-meter long, 2-meter wide pipe with a 5-inch diameter diameter pipe laid in Forest Plot No. 1575 in Indapur taluka. During cross-examination, the defense counsel challenged the authenticity of the evidence, arguing that no documentary proof was provided to establish the pipe belonged to the accused. The court found the prosecution case lacks substantive evidence and accordingly dismissed the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case