State Through Ganesh Babudas Adhikari vs Prasad Satish Pandit Advocate - Gangan Y. J. — 190/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 435,427. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHRG140010302022

Filing Number

747/2022

Filing Date

12-Sep-2022

Registration No

190/2022

Registration Date

12-Sep-2022

Court

Civil Judge, J.D.and J.M.F.C., Uran

Judge

4-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 29-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

26

Police Station

Pen Police Station

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 435,427

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Through Ganesh Babudas Adhikari

    Adv. A.P.P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Prasad Satish Pandit Advocate - Gangan Y. J.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: RCC No-190/2022 (State v. Prasad Satish Pandit) Court Decision: The accused, Prasad Satish Pandit, was acquitted of charges under Sections 435 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (burning property and mischief causing damage). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—no witness saw the accused commit the act, and the alleged Section 27 discovery evidence was deemed legally invalid since police had already visited the incident spot months earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  9. 02-Feb-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  10. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  11. 22-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  12. 24-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  13. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  14. 14-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  15. 12-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  16. 07-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  17. 10-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

  18. 06-Feb-2025

    Hearing

  19. 18-Jan-2025

    Hearing

  20. 12-Dec-2024

    Hearing

  21. 19-Nov-2024

    Hearing

  22. 04-Nov-2024

    Hearing

  23. 23-Sep-2024

    Hearing

  24. 13-Aug-2024

    Hearing

  25. 08-May-2024

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  26. 17-Feb-2024

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  27. 12-Dec-2023

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  28. 16-Oct-2023

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  29. 24-Jul-2023

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  30. 22-Jun-2023

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  31. 16-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  32. 18-Jan-2023

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  33. 29-Nov-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  34. 29-Sep-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C. Uran

  35. 13-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 12-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 190/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCC No-190/2022 (State v. Prasad Satish Pandit) Court Decision: The accused, Prasad Satish Pandit, was acquitted of charges under Sections 435 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (burning property and mischief causing damage). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—no witness saw the accused commit the act, and the alleged Section 27 discovery evidence was deemed legally invalid since police had already visited the incident spot months earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case