Excise P S Yadgiri vs Venkatesh S/o Mareappa Srigeri — 824/2018
Case under Sec. of K.e Act Section Us,11,12,14,15,32,38(A),43,of,KE,Act. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 25th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAYG030049432018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
822/2018
Filing Date
20-12-2018
Registration No
824/2018
Registration Date
26-12-2018
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YADGIR
Judge
334-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
0028
Police Station
EXCISE PS, YADIR
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Excise P S Yadgiri
Adv. A P P
Respondent(s)
Venkatesh S/o Mareappa Srigeri
A-2 Laxman S/o Hanumappa Kaddi
Hearing History
Judge: 334-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
Disposed
JUDGMENTS-CRIMINAL
JUDGMENTS-CRIMINAL
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS-CRIMINAL | |
| 18-02-2026 | JUDGMENTS-CRIMINAL | |
| 10-02-2026 | SUMMONS | |
| 19-01-2026 | SUMMONS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the 1st accused under the Karnataka Excise Act Sections 32 and 38(M), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal transportation of alcohol and beer beyond reasonable doubt. Although excise officers recovered whisky tetra packs, beer tins, and bottles from a motorcycle on February 9, 2018, the court noted critical gaps in evidence: key eyewitnesses contradicted the prosecution's case, proper chain of custody procedures weren't followed, and corroborating testimony from neighboring residents was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court acquitted the 1st accused under the Karnataka Excise Act Sections 32 and 38(M), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal transportation of alcohol and beer beyond reasonable doubt. Although excise officers recovered whisky tetra packs, beer tins, and bottles from a motorcycle on February 9, 2018, the court noted critical gaps in evidence: key eyewitnesses contradicted the prosecution's case, proper chain of custody procedures weren't followed, and corroborating testimony from neighboring residents was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts