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.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUP320006042024
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
179/2024
Filing Date
29-05-2024
Registration No
179/2024
Registration Date
29-05-2024
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA
Judge
516-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.F.O. Shankaranarayana
Adv. The APP Kundapura.
Respondent(s)
Chittaranjan Rao
Hearing History
Judge: 516-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
ISSUE B/W AGAINST CW
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
FOR COMPLY
NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ISSUE B/W AGAINST CW |
| 03-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 03-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 17-12-2025 | FOR COMPLY |
| 09-12-2025 | NOTICE |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts