R.F.O. Shankaranarayana vs Chittaranjan Rao — 179/2024

Case under Karnataka Forest Act,1963 Section 33(2),25(3)50(2)K,104A,104D,25(3)KFR. Status: Issue B/W Against Cw. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.

Issue B/W Against Cw Next hearing 06-Apr-2026 this date has passed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAUP320006042024

Filing Number

179/2024

Filing Date

29-May-2024

Registration No

179/2024

Registration Date

29-May-2024

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA

Judge

516-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 12-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Karnataka Forest Act,1963 Section 33(2),25(3)50(2)K,104A,104D,25(3)KFR

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R.F.O. Shankaranarayana

    Adv. The APP Kundapura.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chittaranjan Rao

Case History

  1. 06-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Issue B/W Against Cw

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 17-Dec-2025

    For Comply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 09-Dec-2025

    Notice

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 01-Dec-2025

    Re Issue S/S To Accused

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 28-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 06-Oct-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  10. 06-Oct-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    Summary This court order from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura (Case No. 179/2024) documents the examination of witness Shawal Hamid regarding an alleged illegal felling of trees on 30-08-1993 in Mavinakadu village. The witness testified about 17 trees and 3 betel nut trees being cut down, though he could not clearly identify specific details due to the 30-year gap. During cross-examination, the witness's credibility was questioned as he contradicted prosecution claims about tree seizure and couldn't recall key details, leading the court to treat him as a partially hostile witness and permit cross-examination by the defense counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  11. 06-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 15-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 19-Aug-2025

    Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 31-Jul-2025

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 11-Jun-2025

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 03-Jun-2025

    Issue NBW

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 25-Apr-2025

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 15-Apr-2025

    Issue NBW

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 14-Mar-2025

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 13-Feb-2025

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 13-Feb-2025

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 09-Jan-2025

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 22-Nov-2024

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 14-Nov-2024

    Issue NBW

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 25-Sep-2024

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 20-Aug-2024

    Hearing Before Charge

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 26-Jul-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 28-Jun-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 29-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 29-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 179/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary This court order from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura (Case No. 179/2024) documents the examination of witness Shawal Hamid regarding an alleged illegal felling of trees on 30-08-1993 in Mavinakadu village. The witness testified about 17 trees and 3 betel nut trees being cut down, though he could not clearly identify specific details due to the 30-year gap. During cross-examination, the witness's credibility was questioned as he contradicted prosecution claims about tree seizure and couldn't recall key details, leading the court to treat him as a partially hostile witness and permit cross-examination by the defense counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case