Noor Mohammed S/o Mohammed Usman, Age 47 Yrs, Occ Agri vs Yadgiri Town PS — 10/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/Sec,438,of,BNSS. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 07th July 2026.

Case disposed

CRL.R.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS

CNR: KAYG010010872026

Filing Number

10/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

10/2026

Registration Date

25-May-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR

Judge

1568-I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

Decision Date

07-Jul-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 17-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0063

Police Station

YADGIRI TOWN PS

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/Sec,438,of,BNSS
Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act 1964 Section U/Sec,4,12,of,KPSPC,Act,2020

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Noor Mohammed S/o Mohammed Usman, Age 47 Yrs, Occ Agri

    Adv. Pulakesh S Malipatil

  2. 2.Akram S/o Maheboobsab, age 37 Yrs, occ Agri

  3. 3.Sadiq s/o Sahikh Maheboob, age 29 Yrs, occ Agri

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Yadgiri Town PS (Police Station)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Jul-2026

    Orders

    Case Summary: Crl.Rev.Pet.No.10/2026 Court Decision: The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir rejected the revision petition filed by three agricultural workers (Noor Mohammed, Akram, and Sadiq) seeking release of 18 cattle seized by police. The court upheld the lower court's order placing the cattle in a Goshala (shelter), finding credible evidence that the animals were being held for slaughter rather than agricultural use. Key Reasoning: Despite petitioners claiming to have purchased receipts and asserting agricultural necessity, the court rejected their petition because: (1) the police complaint detailed evidence of a slaughter room with animal parts at the seizure site; (2) petitioners failed to produce original bills despite court direction; (3) the complaint's own averments indicated the cattle were kept for slaughtering purposes; and (4) without proper documentary proof, no court could release seized cattle in such circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Jul-2026

    Disposed

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  4. 06-Jul-2026

    Orders-Criminal

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  5. 04-Jul-2026

    Orders-Criminal

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  6. 03-Jul-2026

    Orders-Criminal

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  7. 29-Jun-2026

    For Further Hearing

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  8. 27-Jun-2026

    For Further Hearing

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  9. 11-Jun-2026

    For Further Hearing

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  10. 09-Jun-2026

    For Further Hearing

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  11. 08-Jun-2026

    Notice

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  12. 04-Jun-2026

    Hearing

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  13. 30-May-2026

    Hearing

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  14. 29-May-2026

    Orders-Criminal

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  15. 27-May-2026

    Further Hearing

    I Addl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  16. 26-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 25-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 10/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.Rev.Pet.No.10/2026 Court Decision: The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir rejected the revision petition filed by three agricultural workers (Noor Mohammed, Akram, and Sadiq) seeking release of 18 cattle seized by police. The court upheld the lower court's order placing the cattle in a Goshala (shelter), finding credible evidence that the animals were being held for slaughter rather than agricultural use. Key Reasoning: Despite petitioners claiming to have purchased receipts and asserting agricultural necessity, the court rejected their petition because: (1) the police complaint detailed evidence of a slaughter room with animal parts at the seizure site; (2) petitioners failed to produce original bills despite court direction; (3) the complaint's own averments indicated the cattle were kept for slaughtering purposes; and (4) without proper documentary proof, no court could release seized cattle in such circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case