State by Excise Police, Magadi vs Janardhan Rao — 6672/2021
Case under Karnataka Excise Act 1965 Section 32 KE ACT. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KARN420088012021
Filing Number
6631/2021
Filing Date
22-12-2021
Registration No
6672/2021
Registration Date
22-12-2021
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI
Judge
103-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
13/2020
Police Station
EXCISE PS, MAGADI
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State by Excise Police, Magadi
Adv. no
Respondent(s)
Janardhan Rao
Hearing History
Judge: 103-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Disposed
JUDGEMENT.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT. |
| 16-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 05-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Janardhan Rao (C.C.No.6672/2021) The court acquitted Janardhan Rao of charges under Sections 32(1) and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act for illegal liquor possession. The court found the search conducted at Shivaji Military Hotel violated Section 54 of the Excise Act because the officer failed to obtain a search warrant or record grounds justifying its omission, rendering the search illegal and without jurisdictional validity. Additionally, the prosecution failed to comply with Section 59(A) by not submitting all seized liquor samples for forensic certification, leaving the evidence insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Janardhan Rao (C.C.No.6672/2021) The court acquitted Janardhan Rao of charges under Sections 32(1) and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act for illegal liquor possession. The court found the search conducted at Shivaji Military Hotel violated Section 54 of the Excise Act because the officer failed to obtain a search warrant or record grounds justifying its omission, rendering the search illegal and without jurisdictional validity. Additionally, the prosecution failed to comply with Section 59(A) by not submitting all seized liquor samples for forensic certification, leaving the evidence insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts