State of Maharashtra vs Gajanan Kalu Pawar Advocate - Sawant Gitesh Motiram — 179/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 120 b. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th April 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG070006092021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
476/2021
Filing Date
20-05-2021
Registration No
179/2021
Registration Date
20-05-2021
Court
Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Karjat
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1
Police Station
Taloja Police Station
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Gajanan Kalu Pawar Advocate - Sawant Gitesh Motiram
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KARJAT
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 20-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 08-01-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 20-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The First Class Magistrate Court in Karjat, Raigad acquitted defendant Gajanan Kalu Pawar of wildlife poaching charges under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Indian Forest Act, 1927. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused hunted a tiger, extracted its nails and teeth, and kept them at his residence, as the evidence presented was insufficient and lacked credible eyewitness testimony to support the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The First Class Magistrate Court in Karjat, Raigad acquitted defendant Gajanan Kalu Pawar of wildlife poaching charges under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Indian Forest Act, 1927. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused hunted a tiger, extracted its nails and teeth, and kept them at his residence, as the evidence presented was insufficient and lacked credible eyewitness testimony to support the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts