ANEKAL POLICE vs VEERANNA — 45/2012

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 32. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KABR220012832011

Registration No

45/2012

Registration Date

12-May-2011

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL

Judge

95-Prl. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 32

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANEKAL POLICE

    Adv. app

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VEERANNA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Case Summary: CC.No.45/2012 - Anekal Police v. Veeranna Decision: The court acquitted Veeranna of charges under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Key Reasoning: The prosecution alleged Veeranna was transporting 775 liters of kerosene valued at Rs. 10,500 without valid license on May 18, 2011. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the kerosene was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) or that it was procured from authorized fair price shops. The critical evidence—including witness testimony and investigation records—did not establish where the kerosene originated or confirm its PDS status. Relying on Karnataka High Court precedents, the court held that to convict under this statute, the prosecution must affirmatively prove the commodity was PDS-issued to authorized dealers. In the absence of such substantive evidence, the case against the accused was vitiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  7. 22-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  8. 27-Nov-2025

    Judgement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  9. 29-Oct-2025

    Judgement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  10. 29-Sep-2025

    Further Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  11. 29-Aug-2025

    Judgement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  12. 02-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  13. 18-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  14. 04-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  15. 25-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  16. 06-Jun-2025

    Accused Statement u/s 313 CrPC

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  17. 19-Apr-2025

    Statement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  18. 20-Mar-2025

    Deposition

  19. 20-Mar-2025

    Statement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  20. 22-Feb-2025

    Reissue Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  21. 23-Jan-2025

    Deposition

  22. 23-Jan-2025

    Issue Summons.

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  23. 09-Jan-2025

    Reissue Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  24. 15-Nov-2024

    Reissue Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  25. 10-Oct-2024

    Reissue

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  26. 27-Sep-2024

    Reissue

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  27. 22-Aug-2024

    Reissue

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  28. 05-Jul-2024

    Deposition

  29. 05-Jul-2024

    Reissue

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  30. 25-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  31. 25-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  32. 16-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  33. 20-Nov-2023

    Reissue Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  34. 14-Aug-2023

    Reissue Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  35. 26-Jun-2023

    Deposition

  36. 26-Jun-2023

    Reissue Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  37. 22-May-2023

    Reissue NBW to accused

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  38. 13-Feb-2023

    Witness Warrant

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  39. 16-Jan-2023

    Witness Warrant

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  40. 20-Dec-2022

    Witness Warrant

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  41. 09-Nov-2022

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  42. 05-Sep-2022

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  43. 10-May-2022

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  44. 06-Nov-2021

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  45. 04-Nov-2021

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  46. 09-Sep-2021

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  47. 10-Jun-2021

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  48. 12-Mar-2021

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  49. 17-Dec-2020

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  50. 19-Nov-2020

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  51. 21-Aug-2020

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  52. 29-May-2020

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  53. 17-Apr-2020

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  54. 23-Jan-2020

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  55. 07-Nov-2019

    Compliance

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  56. 14-Sep-2019

    Lok adalath

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  57. 31-Aug-2019

    Lok adalath

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  58. 06-Jul-2019

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  59. 18-May-2019

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  60. 04-Apr-2019

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  61. 28-Feb-2019

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  62. 31-Jan-2019

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  63. 24-Dec-2018

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  64. 30-Nov-2018

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  65. 14-Sep-2018

    Issue NBW To Accused

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  66. 18-Aug-2018

    Issue NBW To Accused

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  67. 17-Aug-2018

    Issue NBW To Accused

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  68. 15-Jun-2018

    Issue NBW To Accused

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  69. 23-Feb-2018

    Reissue

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  70. 05-Jan-2018

    Reissue

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  71. 06-May-2017

    Reissue

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  72. 22-Jun-2013

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  73. 25-May-2013

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge

  74. 18-Mar-2013

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  75. Case filed

    Registration No. 45/2012

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.No.45/2012 - Anekal Police v. Veeranna Decision: The court acquitted Veeranna of charges under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Key Reasoning: The prosecution alleged Veeranna was transporting 775 liters of kerosene valued at Rs. 10,500 without valid license on May 18, 2011. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the kerosene was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) or that it was procured from authorized fair price shops. The critical evidence—including witness testimony and investigation records—did not establish where the kerosene originated or confirm its PDS status. Relying on Karnataka High Court precedents, the court held that to convict under this statute, the prosecution must affirmatively prove the commodity was PDS-issued to authorized dealers. In the absence of such substantive evidence, the case against the accused was vitiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case