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-Dec-2021
Registration No
6672/2021
Registration Date
22-Dec-2021
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI
Judge
103-Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
Decision Date
27-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
13/2020
Police Station
EXCISE PS, MAGADI
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State by Excise Police, Magadi
Adv. no
Respondent(s)
-
1.Janardhan Rao
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudgmentView PDF
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.
-
27-Mar-2026
Disposed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Mar-2026
Judgement.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
16-Mar-2026
Arguments
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
13-Mar-2026
Arguments
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
05-Mar-2026
Arguments
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Feb-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
27-Feb-2026
Accussed Statement u/s 313 CrPC
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Jan-2026
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Dec-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
21-Nov-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Oct-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
06-Sep-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
06-Sep-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Jul-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
13-May-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
22-Mar-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
06-Feb-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
06-Feb-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
10-Jan-2025
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
28-Nov-2024
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
26-Oct-2024
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Sep-2024
DepositionView PDF
-
27-Sep-2024
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Aug-2024
DepositionView PDF
-
23-Aug-2024
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
16-Jul-2024
ChargeView PDF
-
16-Jul-2024
Evidence.
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
29-Jun-2024
Framing Of Charge Or Plea
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
30-Mar-2024
Framing Of Charge Or Plea
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
26-Feb-2024
Appearance Of Accussed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
20-Jan-2024
NBW To Accused
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Nov-2023
Summons
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
07-Oct-2023
Summons
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
01-Aug-2023
Summons
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
08-May-2023
Summons
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
16-Mar-2023
Appearance Of Accussed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Dec-2022
Appearance Of Accussed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
21-Oct-2022
Appearance Of Accussed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
27-Jul-2022
Appearance Of Accussed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
06-May-2022
Appearance Of Accussed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
18-Feb-2022
Appearance Of Accussed
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC
-
23-Dec-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Dec-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 6672/2021
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.
Explore other courts