State A.C.B. vs Vijay B. Chavhan Advocate - Thakare M.G.Adv. — 100003/2011
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 120B465467471477a. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 05th May 2026.
Spl.Case ACB - Special Case under Prevention of Corruption Act
CNR: MHYA010005882011
Filing Number
100003/2011
Filing Date
29-04-2011
Registration No
100003/2011
Registration Date
29-04-2011
Court
District and Session Court , Yavatmal
Judge
4-District Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Yavatmal
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
3376
Police Station
P.S.Yavatmal City
Year
2004
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State A.C.B.
Adv. A.P.P. Shri V.S. Telang
Respondent(s)
Vijay B. Chavhan Advocate - Thakare M.G.Adv.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Judge - 2 and A.S.J. Yavatmal
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Yavatmal acquitted all six bank officials (Vijay Bhopasing Chavhan, Devidas Vitthalrao Jibhkate, Mukund Shamraoji Kale, Ghanshyam Dadaji Dhobe, Vijay Uddhavrao Uplenchwar, and Narayan Hiraman Mule) of corruption and forgery charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC sections 465, 471. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the alleged criminal conspiracy to obtain illegal gratification, accept bribes, or commit forgery, as the key prosecution witness retracted critical testimony and the informant was unavailable, leaving the case lacking probative evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Yavatmal acquitted all six bank officials (Vijay Bhopasing Chavhan, Devidas Vitthalrao Jibhkate, Mukund Shamraoji Kale, Ghanshyam Dadaji Dhobe, Vijay Uddhavrao Uplenchwar, and Narayan Hiraman Mule) of corruption and forgery charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC sections 465, 471. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the alleged criminal conspiracy to obtain illegal gratification, accept bribes, or commit forgery, as the key prosecution witness retracted critical testimony and the informant was unavailable, leaving the case lacking probative evidence 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