The State of Maharashtra vs Pralhad Kisanrao Khandare Advocate - UNDAL SHAMRAO KUNDLIKRAO — 500027/2014
Case under Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7,13(1)(D),13(2). Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
Spl.Case ACB - Special Case under Prevention of Corruption Act
CNR: MHWS010005162014
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
510027/2014
Filing Date
29-05-2014
Registration No
500027/2014
Registration Date
29-05-2014
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
FIR Details
FIR Number
3074
Police Station
WASHIM CITY
Year
2011
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Pralhad Kisanrao Khandare Advocate - UNDAL SHAMRAO KUNDLIKRAO
Nitin Naryan Joshi
Adv. S.K.Undal
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 02-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 28-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Pralhad Kisanrao Khandare & Nitin Naryan Joshi (2014) The court rejected the discharge application filed by accused Pralhad Khandare, an Agriculture Development Officer. The case involved allegations that the accused demanded Rs. 1,00,000 (later negotiated to Rs. 75,000) as bribes to reinstate a fertilizer shop license that had been cancelled. The court found sufficient prima-facie evidence through panchnama records, trap operations, and seizure of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 35,000 from the two accused respectively. The application was dismissed, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Pralhad Kisanrao Khandare & Nitin Naryan Joshi (2014) The court rejected the discharge application filed by accused Pralhad Khandare, an Agriculture Development Officer. The case involved allegations that the accused demanded Rs. 1,00,000 (later negotiated to Rs. 75,000) as bribes to reinstate a fertilizer shop license that had been cancelled. The court found sufficient prima-facie evidence through panchnama records, trap operations, and seizure of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 35,000 from the two accused respectively. The application was dismissed, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts