The State vs Ramij Rajjak Dange-1 Advocate - Pandhare R.J./Shinde M.N. — 24/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353,379,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 15th April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHRG150003682019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
129/2019
Filing Date
15-04-2019
Registration No
24/2019
Registration Date
15-04-2019
Court
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon
Judge
1-District Judge 2 and Addl Session Judge Mangaon
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
72
Police Station
Roha Police Station
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ramij Rajjak Dange-1 Advocate - Pandhare R.J./Shinde M.N.
Shashikant Ganpat Kadu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 2 and Addl Session Judge Mangaon
Disposed
Judgment
N.B.W._Ready
Judgment
Judgment
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgment | |
| 02-04-2026 | N.B.W._Ready | |
| 31-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 24-03-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sessions Court of Mangaon acquitted both accused Ramij Rajjak Dange and Shashikant Ganpat Kadu of charges under IPC sections 379, 353 r/w 34 and the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the theft of sand or obstruction of a public servant beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps including failure to examine panch witnesses, non-production of video evidence, and insufficient connection between the accused and seized sand. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Sessions Court of Mangaon acquitted both accused Ramij Rajjak Dange and Shashikant Ganpat Kadu of charges under IPC sections 379, 353 r/w 34 and the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the theft of sand or obstruction of a public servant beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps including failure to examine panch witnesses, non-production of video evidence, and insufficient connection between the accused and seized sand. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts