State of Maharashtra through Mandangad Police Station vs Iqbal Umar Mukadam Advocate - Mehta Vikas Chandrakant — 35/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353,. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHRT040003502022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
170/2022
Filing Date
01-10-2022
Registration No
35/2022
Registration Date
01-10-2022
Court
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Khed.
Judge
3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Khed.
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
29
Police Station
Police Station Mandangad
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through Mandangad Police Station
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Iqbal Umar Mukadam Advocate - Mehta Vikas Chandrakant
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Khed.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge at Khed, Maharashtra acquitted accused Iqbal Umar Mukadam of charges under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 110 read with Section 117 of the Maharashtra Police Act, finding insufficient evidence that mere verbal statements without accompanying physical assault or gesture constitute obstruction of a public servant's duties. The court noted critical gaps in the prosecution's case, including lack of documentary evidence that the forest office was functioning at the alleged location during official hours, and inconsistencies between the FIR and witness testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge at Khed, Maharashtra acquitted accused Iqbal Umar Mukadam of charges under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 110 read with Section 117 of the Maharashtra Police Act, finding insufficient evidence that mere verbal statements without accompanying physical assault or gesture constitute obstruction of a public servant's duties. The court noted critical gaps in the prosecution's case, including lack of documentary evidence that the forest office was functioning at the alleged location during official hours, and inconsistencies between the FIR and witness testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts