The State Of Maharashtra through Achara Police Station vs Prashant Prabhakar Naik Advocate - GOVEKAR HEMENDRA LAXMAN — 100/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(A). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHSI070002652025
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
176/2025
Filing Date
21-06-2025
Registration No
100/2025
Registration Date
21-06-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
FIR Details
FIR Number
24
Police Station
Police Station Achare
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Of Maharashtra through Achara Police Station
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Prashant Prabhakar Naik Advocate - GOVEKAR HEMENDRA LAXMAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Malvan
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 07-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 28-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary In this gambling case (FIR 100/2025) under the Maharashtra Gambling Act, the accused Prashant Naik was arrested for illegally conducting lottery/gambling operations and accepting money from the public on May 17, 2025. The court examined witness testimony and the accused's counter-examination statement. The counter-investigation by the defense raised procedural questions about evidence documentation and identification procedures, but the court found the prosecution's case credible and rejected the accused's denials. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this gambling case (FIR 100/2025) under the Maharashtra Gambling Act, the accused Prashant Naik was arrested for illegally conducting lottery/gambling operations and accepting money from the public on May 17, 2025. The court examined witness testimony and the accused's counter-examination statement. The counter-investigation by the defense raised procedural questions about evidence documentation and identification procedures, but the court found the prosecution's case credible and rejected the accused's denials. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts