Shahabad town p.s. vs Mohammad Sabir S/o Mohammad Nasiruddin Age 38 occ business R/o Bendi Bazar shahabad — 2070/2021
Case under 32 38 (a) K.e. Act. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 22nd April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB820021752021
Filing Number
2070/2021
Filing Date
26-11-2021
Registration No
2070/2021
Registration Date
26-11-2021
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHAHABAD
Judge
330-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHAHABAD
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
Cr No 175
Police Station
SHAHABAD TOWN PS
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shahabad town p.s.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Mohammad Sabir S/o Mohammad Nasiruddin Age 38 occ business R/o Bendi Bazar 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 |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT |
| 16-03-2026 | CRIMINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
| 12-03-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 2070/2021 Court Decision: Mohammad Sabeer was acquitted of all charges under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of IPC. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to: (1) lack of documentary evidence that the seized items were from the accused's shop, (2) hostile testimony from the pancha witnesses who denied the seizure procedure, and (3) contradictory evidence from investigating officers regarding whether seized jaggery was "rotten" or "normal." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC No. 2070/2021 Court Decision: Mohammad Sabeer was acquitted of all charges under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of IPC. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to: (1) lack of documentary evidence that the seized items were from the accused's shop, (2) hostile testimony from the pancha witnesses who denied the seizure procedure, and (3) contradictory evidence from investigating officers regarding whether seized jaggery was "rotten" or "normal." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts