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

Evidence Part Heard

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

Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act Section 12(A)

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

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

28-11-2025
Plea
11-03-2026
Evidence

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Malvan All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case