THE STATE vs SHASHIDHARA S/O SANJEEV SHETTY Advocate - SRI K.B.GUDIHAL — 1696/2022
Case under U/s. 32, 34 Ex Act. Disposed: Uncontested--TRANSFERRED on 04th June 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KADW300021672022
Filing Number
1695/2022
Filing Date
05-Sep-2022
Registration No
1696/2022
Registration Date
05-Sep-2022
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALGHATAGI
Judge
301-Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
Decision Date
04-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--TRANSFERRED
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
24
Police Station
KALGHATAGI PS
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHASHIDHARA S/O SANJEEV SHETTY Advocate - SRI K.B.GUDIHAL
-
2.DINESH S/O KOKAR URF VOGODAS NAYAKA
-
3.ISHWARA S/O SUBBARAY DEVADIGA
Adv. SRI K.B.GUDIHAL
-
4.GOVIND SHETTY S/O SANJEEV SHETTY
Adv. SRI K.B.GUDIHAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-Jun-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
16-Apr-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
02-Apr-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
22-Jan-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
23-Dec-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
28-Nov-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
27-Nov-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
25-Oct-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
18-Jul-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
10-Jul-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
10-Jun-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
04-Mar-2025
Deposition
-
04-Mar-2025
Deposition
Case Summary: 1696/2022 Court Decision: The court heard witness testimony on 04.03.2025 regarding the seizure of beer bottles and a vehicle from the accused. The witness confirmed that on 28.01.2021, they signed a document (Exhibit 1) detailing the seizure of approximately 42 bottles of various King Fisher and Tuberg premium beer brands, along with one auto-rickshaw. The court admitted the witness's cross-examination and accepted the defense counsel's arguments that certain procedural requirements under Sections 1, 3, and 4 may not have been fully satisfied, indicating potential procedural defects in the seizure process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Mar-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
27-Feb-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
30-Dec-2024
Charge
-
30-Dec-2024
Evidence
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
16-Dec-2024
Framing Of Charge Or Plea
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
29-Oct-2024
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
23-Sep-2024
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
02-Jul-2024
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
23-Apr-2024
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
17-Jan-2024
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
22-Nov-2023
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
25-Sep-2023
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
08-Aug-2023
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
15-Jun-2023
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
17-May-2023
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
30-Mar-2023
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
20-Feb-2023
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
28-Dec-2022
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
25-Nov-2022
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
19-Oct-2022
Summons
Civil Judge and JMFC , Kalghatgi
-
06-Sep-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Sep-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 1696/2022
Case Summary: 1696/2022 Court Decision: The court heard witness testimony on 04.03.2025 regarding the seizure of beer bottles and a vehicle from the accused. The witness confirmed that on 28.01.2021, they signed a document (Exhibit 1) detailing the seizure of approximately 42 bottles of various King Fisher and Tuberg premium beer brands, along with one auto-rickshaw. The court admitted the witness's cross-examination and accepted the defense counsel's arguments that certain procedural requirements under Sections 1, 3, and 4 may not have been fully satisfied, indicating potential procedural defects in the seizure process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts