State of Kerala Excise vs Rajesh — 100511/2019

Case under Abkari Act Section 55(i). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLKM270002162019

Filing Number

115/2019

Filing Date

20-May-2019

Registration No

100511/2019

Registration Date

20-May-2019

Court

Sub Court Karunagappally

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Abkari Act Section 55(i)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala Excise

    Adv. Baiju N.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rajesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: S.C No. 31/2022 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four accused (Aravind, Shabu, Prasanth, and Deepu) under Section 232 of CrPC of charges including criminal intimidation, obscene language, voluntarily causing hurt, and attempt to murder. Key Reasoning: The court found that both victims failed to identify their attackers in testimony, and occurrence witnesses denied witnessing the alleged January 1, 2021 incident. The judge held that mere FIS documentation cannot prove guilt without witness testimony supporting the allegations, citing *Mohan v. State of Kerala*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  5. 04-Apr-2026

    For judgment

    Sub Judge

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    For judgment

    Sub Judge

  7. 27-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Sub Judge

  8. 25-Mar-2026

    For 313

    Sub Judge

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Issue Summons

    Sub Judge

  10. 26-Feb-2026

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  11. 09-Feb-2026

    Issue Summons

    Sub Judge

  12. 18-Dec-2025

    Repeat warrant

    Sub Judge

  13. 21-Nov-2025

    Repeat warrant

    Sub Judge

  14. 22-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sub Judge

  15. 16-Aug-2025

    Repeat warrant

    Sub Judge

  16. 28-May-2025

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  17. 04-Apr-2025

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  18. 07-Mar-2025

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  19. 24-Jan-2025

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  20. 23-Oct-2024

    Issue Bailable Warrant

    Sub Judge

  21. 11-Jul-2024

    Issue Bailable Warrant

    Sub Judge

  22. 11-Mar-2024

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  23. 19-Jan-2024

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  24. 03-Oct-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  25. 04-Jul-2023

    Hearing on Charge

    Sub Judge

  26. 22-Jun-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  27. 09-Mar-2023

    Advanced

    Sub Judge

  28. 10-Nov-2022

    Return of warrant

    Sub Judge

  29. 07-Jul-2022

    Return of warrant

    Sub Judge

  30. 18-Feb-2022

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  31. 13-Dec-2021

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  32. 03-Sep-2021

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  33. 24-Jun-2021

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  34. 18-Nov-2020

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  35. 29-Jul-2020

    Declared Holidays

    Sub Judge

  36. 02-Jun-2020

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  37. 23-Jan-2020

    Recall distress warrant

    Sub Judge

  38. 03-Dec-2019

    NBW and notice to Sureties

    Sub Judge

  39. 27-Sep-2019

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  40. 12-Jul-2019

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  41. 22-Jun-2019

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  42. 31-May-2019

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  43. 20-May-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  44. 20-May-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100511/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: S.C No. 31/2022 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four accused (Aravind, Shabu, Prasanth, and Deepu) under Section 232 of CrPC of charges including criminal intimidation, obscene language, voluntarily causing hurt, and attempt to murder. Key Reasoning: The court found that both victims failed to identify their attackers in testimony, and occurrence witnesses denied witnessing the alleged January 1, 2021 incident. The judge held that mere FIS documentation cannot prove guilt without witness testimony supporting the allegations, citing *Mohan v. State of Kerala*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case