State of Maharashtra through PSO Washim City vs Shubham Anil Daliya Advocate - MORE SUDHIR DAMODAR — 30/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 188,272,273,328. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th June 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHWS010003502024
Filing Number
172/2024
Filing Date
08-04-2024
Registration No
30/2024
Registration Date
08-04-2024
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
Decision Date
12th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
530
Police Station
WASHIM CITY
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Washim City
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Shubham Anil Daliya Advocate - MORE SUDHIR DAMODAR
Ketan Shamlal Mundhare
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 01-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 29-05-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 28-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sessions Case 30/2024 The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, acquitted both accused—Shubham Anil Daliya and Ketan Shyamlal Mundhare—of charges under Sections 328, 272, 273, 188 IPC and Section 59(i) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, finding insufficient evidence of guilt. The court noted critical gaps in prosecution evidence: one key witness turned hostile, the investigating officer provided no description of seized articles, the chemical analysis report did not confirm poisonous substances, and the government notification allegedly violated was neither produced nor proved, leaving the prosecution case riddled with reasonable doubt that entitled the accused to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sessions Case 30/2024 The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, acquitted both accused—Shubham Anil Daliya and Ketan Shyamlal Mundhare—of charges under Sections 328, 272, 273, 188 IPC and Section 59(i) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, finding insufficient evidence of guilt. The court noted critical gaps in prosecution evidence: one key witness turned hostile, the investigating officer provided no description of seized articles, the chemical analysis report did not confirm poisonous substances, and the government notification allegedly violated was neither produced nor proved, leaving the prosecution case riddled with reasonable doubt that entitled the accused to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts