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
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
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
HEARING BEBORE CHARGE
HEARING BEBORE CHARGE
EVIDENCE - Criminal
EVIDENCE - Criminal
EVIDENCE - Criminal
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts