The State Through Chittpur Excise PS vs Jemibai W/o Subhash Rathod Age 54 Yrs R/o Devantegnoor Tq.Shahabad Dt.Kalaburagi — 942/2024

Case under 32 38 (a) K.e. Act. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAKB820013932024

Filing Number

942/2024

Filing Date

17-Dec-2024

Registration No

942/2024

Registration Date

17-Dec-2024

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHAHABAD

Judge

330-CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

18

Police Station

EXCISE PS, CHITTAPUR

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

32 38 (a) K.e. Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State Through Chittpur Excise PS (Police Station)

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Jemibai W/o Subhash Rathod Age 54 Yrs R/o Devantegnoor Tq.Shahabad Dt.Kalaburagi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: CC No. 942/2024 Court Decision: The accused Jemibai was acquitted of all charges under Sections 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of the IPC. Key Reasoning: The court found critical weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The two panch witnesses (who were supposed to certify the seizure) turned hostile and testified that no panchanama was conducted in their presence, undermining the seizure's credibility. The court also noted the prosecution failed to prove the provisional shop belonged to the accused—the tax receipt obtained from the PDO did not establish her ownership. Material contradictions in witness testimony and the lack of independent recovery documentation rendered the seizure unreliable, making it impossible to prove possession or sale of illegal liquor beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Criminal Judgement

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Criminal Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Accussed Statement u/s 313 CrPC

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    Accussed Statement u/s 313 CrPC

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  10. 03-Feb-2026

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  11. 19-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  12. 19-Jan-2026

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  13. 22-Dec-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  14. 22-Dec-2025

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  15. 04-Dec-2025

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  16. 06-Oct-2025

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  17. 29-Jul-2025

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  18. 07-Jul-2025

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  19. 17-Jun-2025

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  20. 24-Apr-2025

    Criminal Evidence

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  21. 10-Feb-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Shahabad

  22. 17-Dec-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 17-Dec-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 942/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC No. 942/2024 Court Decision: The accused Jemibai was acquitted of all charges under Sections 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of the IPC. Key Reasoning: The court found critical weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The two panch witnesses (who were supposed to certify the seizure) turned hostile and testified that no panchanama was conducted in their presence, undermining the seizure's credibility. The court also noted the prosecution failed to prove the provisional shop belonged to the accused—the tax receipt obtained from the PDO did not establish her ownership. Material contradictions in witness testimony and the lack of independent recovery documentation rendered the seizure unreliable, making it impossible to prove possession or sale of illegal liquor beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case