State through Honavar P S vs Sajjad Ahammed S/o Kutubuddin Ghani,Age-28 Years, R/o.Tohid mulla,Chandavar,Honavar. Advocate - Krishna Venkatraman Naik — 76/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/s.457,380. Status: ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC. Next hearing: 28th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUK610002762020
Next Hearing
28th March 2026
Filing Number
76/2020
Filing Date
10-11-2020
Registration No
76/2020
Registration Date
10-11-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR
Judge
526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State through Honavar P S
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Sajjad Ahammed S/o Kutubuddin Ghani,Age-28 Years, R/o.Tohid mulla,Chandavar,Honavar. Advocate - Krishna Venkatraman Naik
Mubaseer S/o Kutubuddin Ghani,Age-30 Years, R/o.Tohidmulla,Chandavar.
Hearing History
Judge: 526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA
ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC
ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC
ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
| 21-02-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
| 07-02-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
| 31-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 24-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Criminal Case No. 76/2020, the court examined witness testimony regarding evidence collection procedures in an investigation dating back 5-6 years. The witness testified that he was called by police to witness the seizure of a vehicle, ammunition, and other items, as well as their photography and documentation. The court found discrepancies in the police's handling of evidence and noted that the prosecution requested permission to treat the witness as an adverse witness, which was granted. The witness statement has been recorded and the case proceedings continue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Criminal Case No. 76/2020, the court examined witness testimony regarding evidence collection procedures in an investigation dating back 5-6 years. The witness testified that he was called by police to witness the seizure of a vehicle, ammunition, and other items, as well as their photography and documentation. The court found discrepancies in the police's handling of evidence and noted that the prosecution requested permission to treat the witness as an adverse witness, which was granted. The witness statement has been recorded and the case proceedings continue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts