The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Parvez Tahir Shaikh and 3 oths. Advocate - Gandhi R.M. — 1100115/2014
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 37942934. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG100008662014
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1100115/2014
Filing Date
01-10-2014
Registration No
1100115/2014
Registration Date
01-10-2014
Court
Civil Judge,J.D. and J.M.F.C., Mahad
Judge
1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Mahad
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
34
Police Station
Mahad Town Police Stn.
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Mohammad Parvez Tahir Shaikh and 3 oths. Advocate - Gandhi R.M.
Shadaf Afaroz kureshi
Abdul Hamib Abdul Gaful Patel
Salim Esak kapadi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Mahad
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Mahad acquitted all four accused under IPC Sections 379, 429 with Section 34, and other animal welfare and motor vehicle laws, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt despite witness testimonies. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: inadequate veterinary certificates, lack of proper documentation, inconsistent witness statements, and procedural irregularities in the investigation that undermined the case's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Mahad acquitted all four accused under IPC Sections 379, 429 with Section 34, and other animal welfare and motor vehicle laws, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt despite witness testimonies. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: inadequate veterinary certificates, lack of proper documentation, inconsistent witness statements, and procedural irregularities in the investigation that undermined the case's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts