RFO, Ponnampet Range vs Manju Advocate - B S Kumari — 318/2025

Case under Wild Life (Protection) Act Section U/sec,9,39,50,and,51,of,WLP,Act. Status: HEARING BEBORE CHARGE. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAKD300004062025

HEARING BEBORE CHARGE

Next Hearing

02nd April 2026

Filing Number

318/2025

Filing Date

03-03-2025

Registration No

318/2025

Registration Date

03-03-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, PONNAMPET

Judge

1012-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PONNAMPET

Acts & Sections

Wild Life (Protection) Act Section U/sec,9,39,50,and,51,of,WLP,Act

Petitioner(s)

RFO, Ponnampet Range

Adv. Asst Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Manju Advocate - B S Kumari

Ganesh

Raghu

Kottangada M. Karyappa @ Ravi

Hearing History

Judge: 1012-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PONNAMPET

06-03-2026

HEARING BEBORE CHARGE

24-01-2026

HEARING BEBORE CHARGE

24-12-2025

EVIDENCE - Criminal

11-11-2025

EVIDENCE - Criminal

03-10-2025

EVIDENCE - Criminal

Interim Orders

06-03-2026
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition

Summary This is a Criminal Case (C.C. No. 1478/2023) heard on 06.03.2026 before the Civil Judge at Ponmepete, Karnataka. The case involves an alleged illegal beef sale, with witness testimony recorded (PW-3). The court examined evidence including statements, photographs, and veterinary reports regarding 8 kg of meat allegedly seized. The accused (A-P) was cross-examined, with defense arguments that the location was public, no cooking equipment was present, and the meat was not for sale. The court case was adjourned to Section 11 for further hearing, with examination of witnesses and evidence documentation completed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary This is a Criminal Case (C.C. No. 1478/2023) heard on 06.03.2026 before the Civil Judge at Ponmepete, Karnataka. The case involves an alleged illegal beef sale, with witness testimony recorded (PW-3). The court examined evidence including statements, photographs, and veterinary reports regarding 8 kg of meat allegedly seized. The accused (A-P) was cross-examined, with defense arguments that the location was public, no cooking equipment was present, and the meat was not for sale. The court case was adjourned to Section 11 for further hearing, with examination of witnesses and evidence documentation completed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, PONNAMPET All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case