Somwarept Excise vs Unnikrishna — 455/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Section 13(1)(a),13(1)(f),32(1),43 of KE Act. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKD400007812025
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
455/2025
Filing Date
11-09-2025
Registration No
455/2025
Registration Date
11-09-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMVARPET
Judge
367-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SOMVARPET
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Somwarept Excise
Adv. Asst Public Procecutor
Respondent(s)
Unnikrishna
Hearing History
Judge: 367-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SOMVARPET
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 17-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 23-01-2026 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
| 29-12-2025 | SUMMONS |
| 09-12-2025 | SUMMONS |
Interim Orders
Summary In this excise department case (CC.455/2025), an Excise Inspector's testimony regarding a raid on December 6, 2024, was examined by the defense counsel. The defense challenged the credibility of the investigation, citing procedural irregularities including: lack of proper FIR registration details, absence of independent panchas (witnesses), no video recording of the accused's son, failure to interview purchasers, and alleged creation of false evidence. The court, after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defense, allowed the defense objections and recorded them in the order, finding significant procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this excise department case (CC.455/2025), an Excise Inspector's testimony regarding a raid on December 6, 2024, was examined by the defense counsel. The defense challenged the credibility of the investigation, citing procedural irregularities including: lack of proper FIR registration details, absence of independent panchas (witnesses), no video recording of the accused's son, failure to interview purchasers, and alleged creation of false evidence. The court, after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defense, allowed the defense objections and recorded them in the order, finding significant procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts