SI of police vs Unnunni — 101140/2021
Case under Information Technology Act Section 3,4,5(a),7(1) (b),2(b). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 18th April 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL260021342021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
101140/2021
Filing Date
14-09-2021
Registration No
101140/2021
Registration Date
14-09-2021
Court
JFCM I, Kayamkulam
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
2532
Police Station
Kayamkulam Police Station
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI of police
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Unnunni
Abhi
Shijumon
Manju
Viji
Rajendran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Defence Evidence
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-04-2026 | Order/Judgement | |
| 13-04-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 10-04-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC | |
| 11-03-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Kayamkulam Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted all six accused persons of charges under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The court found that while the prosecution proved sexual acts occurred at the premises, it failed to establish the critical element of "prostitution for hire or reward"—mere possession of currency by the accused does not establish the commercial nexus required by law. Without proving prostitution itself, charges under Sections 3, 4, 5(a), 7(1)(b), and 7(2)(b) could not stand, and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Kayamkulam Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted all six accused persons of charges under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The court found that while the prosecution proved sexual acts occurred at the premises, it failed to establish the critical element of "prostitution for hire or reward"—mere possession of currency by the accused does not establish the commercial nexus required by law. Without proving prostitution itself, charges under Sections 3, 4, 5(a), 7(1)(b), and 7(2)(b) could not stand, and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts