Government of Gujarat vs BALAVIRSING URFE PILU KARATARSING SINGLIKAR Advocate - D K SONDARVA — 682/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB040007982025
Filing Number
682/2025
Filing Date
07-Oct-2025
Registration No
682/2025
Registration Date
07-Oct-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 29-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
305
Police Station
KUTIYANA POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.BALAVIRSING URFE PILU KARATARSING SINGLIKAR Advocate - D K SONDARVA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: C.C.No. 682/2025 The court acquitted the accused (Balavirsing Urfe Pilu Karatarsing Singlikar) of charges under IPC Section 135 (unlawful removal of boundary marks). The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case despite presenting three witnesses and documentary evidence; critical testimonies lacked corroboration, independent witnesses were unavailable, and procedural irregularities undermined the investigation's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
12-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
06-Feb-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
07-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
10-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.
-
13-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 682/2025
Case Summary: C.C.No. 682/2025 The court acquitted the accused (Balavirsing Urfe Pilu Karatarsing Singlikar) of charges under IPC Section 135 (unlawful removal of boundary marks). The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case despite presenting three witnesses and documentary evidence; critical testimonies lacked corroboration, independent witnesses were unavailable, and procedural irregularities undermined the investigation's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts