The State of Maharashtra vs Mohasin Akbar Husen Jahagirdar — 311/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 223,274,275,123,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHSO010038242025
Filing Number
2594/2025
Filing Date
18-12-2025
Registration No
311/2025
Registration Date
18-12-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Solapur
Judge
8-District Judge - 1 and Additional Session Judge
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
426
Police Station
Mandrup
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. DGP P.M.Rajput
Respondent(s)
Mohasin Akbar Husen Jahagirdar
Tabrej Akabar Husen Jahagirdar
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District Judge - 1 and Additional Session Judge
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 02-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 21-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: S.C. No. 311/2025 The Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur acquitted both accused Mohasin Akbar Husen Jahagirdar and Tabrej Akbar Husen Jahagirdar on March 13, 2026, for charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, related to alleged transportation and possession of prohibited gutka/tobacco products. The court found the prosecution failed to provide corroborative evidence, did not examine panch witnesses, lacked independent eyewitness testimony, and failed to comply with Food Safety Act procedures, resulting in insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: S.C. No. 311/2025 The Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur acquitted both accused Mohasin Akbar Husen Jahagirdar and Tabrej Akbar Husen Jahagirdar on March 13, 2026, for charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, related to alleged transportation and possession of prohibited gutka/tobacco products. The court found the prosecution failed to provide corroborative evidence, did not examine panch witnesses, lacked independent eyewitness testimony, and failed to comply with Food Safety Act procedures, resulting in insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts