State of Kerala (Police) vs Job Advocate - Adv.V.V.Jayachandran — 401132/2018
Case under Anti Social Activities (prevention) Act 2007 (kerala) Section 15(4)rw19. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL130027072018
Filing Number
402692/2018
Filing Date
04-07-2018
Registration No
401132/2018
Registration Date
04-07-2018
Court
JFCM II, Cherthala
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
596
Police Station
Poochakkal Police Station
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor II, Cherthala
Respondent(s)
Job Advocate - Adv.V.V.Jayachandran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 06-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 24-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 13-02-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala acquitted accused Job of charges under Sections 15(4) read with 19 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, finding him not guilty. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness testimonies—specifically, PW2 and PW3 gave conflicting accounts regarding who identified and arrested the accused, rendering the evidence unreliable and untrustworthy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala acquitted accused Job of charges under Sections 15(4) read with 19 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, finding him not guilty. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness testimonies—specifically, PW2 and PW3 gave conflicting accounts regarding who identified and arrested the accused, rendering the evidence unreliable and untrustworthy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts