State of Kerala Police vs Haridas Advocate - BIJILY JOSEPH, BIJILY JOSEPH — 100070/2025

Case under Abkari Act Section 55(a)(i). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 21st April 2026.

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLAL010002482025

Case disposed

Filing Number

219/2025

Filing Date

16-01-2025

Registration No

100070/2025

Registration Date

16-01-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court Alappuzha/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

Judge

3-Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge-II Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

481

Police Station

Ambalapuzha Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Abkari Act Section 55(a)(i)

Petitioner(s)

State of Kerala Police

Adv. Asst.Public Prosecutor Alappuzha

Respondent(s)

Haridas Advocate - BIJILY JOSEPH, BIJILY JOSEPH

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge-II Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

21-04-2026

Disposed

18-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

16-04-2026

FOR HEARING

28-03-2026

Defence Evidence

12-03-2026

Examination of the Accused U/S 351 BNSS

Final Orders / Judgements

21-04-2026
Judgement

Court Summary The Sessions Court, Alappuzha acquitted Haridas of charges under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act (illegal liquor sale). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed liquor for sale purposes, citing insufficient evidence of actual sale, the meager amount of cash seized (₹270), lack of independent witness corroboration, and procedural defects in evidence chain custody (missing seal specimens on property list). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Summary The Sessions Court, Alappuzha acquitted Haridas of charges under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act (illegal liquor sale). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed liquor for sale purposes, citing insufficient evidence of actual sale, the meager amount of cash seized (₹270), lack of independent witness corroboration, and procedural defects in evidence chain custody (missing seal specimens on property list). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court Alappuzha/ Rent Control Appellate Authority All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case