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

SUMMONS

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

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Section 13(1)(a),13(1)(f),32(1),43 of KE Act

Petitioner(s)

Somwarept Excise

Adv. Asst Public Procecutor

Respondent(s)

Unnikrishna

Hearing History

Judge: 367-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SOMVARPET

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

06-03-2026
Deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMVARPET All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case