Somwarpet Excise vs Virupaksha D.K — 387/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Section 13(1)(a),13(1)(f),32(1),43ofKE act. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKD400006212025
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
387/2025
Filing Date
11-07-2025
Registration No
387/2025
Registration Date
11-07-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMVARPET
Judge
367-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SOMVARPET
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Somwarpet Excise
Adv. Vaishali. V.B.
Respondent(s)
Virupaksha D.K
Hearing History
Judge: 367-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SOMVARPET
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 20-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 09-01-2026 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
| 11-12-2025 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
| 11-11-2025 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
Interim Orders
Summary In this excise case (C.C. No. 387/2025) from Somarapete Court, Karnataka, an excise inspector documented the seizure of illegal liquor on 16.01.2025. Following a tip-off, officers conducted a search and recovered 5 bottles of illicit liquor (totaling approximately 3.5 liters), 20 liters of raw materials for distillation, and related equipment from the accused's residence. The defense counsel challenged the procedure, alleging lack of proper witnesses and documentation. The court recorded the excise inspector's testimony with detailed evidence documentation, samples sealed for chemical analysis, and photographic records. The case proceeded with evidence marked and forwarded for further investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this excise case (C.C. No. 387/2025) from Somarapete Court, Karnataka, an excise inspector documented the seizure of illegal liquor on 16.01.2025. Following a tip-off, officers conducted a search and recovered 5 bottles of illicit liquor (totaling approximately 3.5 liters), 20 liters of raw materials for distillation, and related equipment from the accused's residence. The defense counsel challenged the procedure, alleging lack of proper witnesses and documentation. The court recorded the excise inspector's testimony with detailed evidence documentation, samples sealed for chemical analysis, and photographic records. The case proceeded with evidence marked and forwarded for further investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts