Siddalingayya S/o Gurupadayya mathpati Age 59 occ Food Inspector R/o shahabad vs Manjoor Ahemad S/o Gulam Maheboob sab Badal Age 36 occ business R/o Laxmi gunj Shahabad — 262/2020
Case under Criminal Under Ipc Section 3&7ofE.C. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB820004072020
Filing Number
263/2020
Filing Date
09-11-2020
Registration No
262/2020
Registration Date
09-11-2020
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHAHABAD
Judge
330-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHAHABAD
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
Cr No 112
Police Station
SHAHABAD TOWN PS
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Siddalingayya S/o Gurupadayya mathpati Age 59 occ Food Inspector R/o shahabad
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Manjoor Ahemad S/o Gulam Maheboob sab Badal Age 36 occ business R/o Laxmi gunj Shahabad
Hearing History
Judge: 330-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHAHABAD
Disposed
CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT
CRIMINAL ARGUMENTS
ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC
ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT |
| 27-03-2026 | CRIMINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 25-03-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
| 13-03-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 262/2020 Decision: Manjur Ahmed was acquitted of charges under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness testimonies, inconsistencies between written and oral evidence, a hostile pancha witness who denied the seizure occurred, and missing documentation proving the grains were meant for public distribution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC No. 262/2020 Decision: Manjur Ahmed was acquitted of charges under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness testimonies, inconsistencies between written and oral evidence, a hostile pancha witness who denied the seizure occurred, and missing documentation proving the grains were meant for public distribution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts