The state/ ASI, Mudhol P.S. vs Ramanna Siddappa Muttur Advocate - G S PATIL/KAR — 116/2021
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section U/s 32,34 KEAct. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KABK200009042021
Filing Number
116/2021
Filing Date
15-02-2021
Registration No
116/2021
Registration Date
15-02-2021
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL
Judge
1193-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The state/ ASI (Assistant Sub-Inspector), Mudhol P.S.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ramanna Siddappa Muttur Advocate - G S PATIL/KAR
Nagappa Channabasappa Bhushannavar
Adv. M A Hiremath
Hearing History
Judge: 1193-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 09-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 06-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 22-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted both accused persons of charges under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of the IPC for alleged illegal liquor possession and sale. The key reasoning: the complainant failed to appear despite 20 summons, both pancha witnesses turned hostile and refused to recognize the accused or confiscated materials, and the FIR was registered post-facto after investigation—violating CrPC provisions and undermining the nexus between the accused and alleged illegal liquor beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted both accused persons of charges under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of the IPC for alleged illegal liquor possession and sale. The key reasoning: the complainant failed to appear despite 20 summons, both pancha witnesses turned hostile and refused to recognize the accused or confiscated materials, and the FIR was registered post-facto after investigation—violating CrPC provisions and undermining the nexus between the accused and alleged illegal liquor beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts