STATEM EXCISE LOTTERY PROHIBITION vs 1. JADIYA NAIKA — 252/2012
Case under Karnataka Excise Act 1965 Section 328r/w32,34,38AKEAct. Status: EVIDENCE.. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KARN320002522012
Next Hearing
30th June 2026
Filing Date
09-03-2012
Registration No
252/2012
Registration Date
09-03-2012
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA
Judge
873-I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KANAKAPURA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATEM EXCISE LOTTERY PROHIBITION
Respondent(s)
1. JADIYA NAIKA
Sombaiah @ Shivanna
A5.Ravi
Hearing History
Judge: 873-I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KANAKAPURA
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 18-04-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 04-03-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 16-02-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC No. 252/2012 This is a criminal case involving an excise/lottery prohibition matter heard at Kanakapura court. A PSI (Police Sub-Inspector) witness testified that he received case files on 28.09.2011 from CSA-8 and continued investigation, ultimately submitting a chargesheet to the court. The court's order addresses allegations that the investigating officer may have submitted a false final report without proper investigation, that the accused committed no offense, and that case documents were fabricated. The court found no merit in these contentions and rejected the challenges raised by the accused's counsel. The case proceeded to trial with no re-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC No. 252/2012 This is a criminal case involving an excise/lottery prohibition matter heard at Kanakapura court. A PSI (Police Sub-Inspector) witness testified that he received case files on 28.09.2011 from CSA-8 and continued investigation, ultimately submitting a chargesheet to the court. The court's order addresses allegations that the investigating officer may have submitted a false final report without proper investigation, that the accused committed no offense, and that case documents were fabricated. The court found no merit in these contentions and rejected the challenges raised by the accused's counsel. The case proceeded to trial with no re-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts