State of Kerala Excise vs Dileepan — 101181/2019
Case under Abkari Act Section us.55(g). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 01st April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKM270004792019
Filing Number
100289/2019
Filing Date
22-10-2019
Registration No
101181/2019
Registration Date
22-10-2019
Court
Sub Court Karunagappally
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
27
Police Station
Karunagappally Excise Range
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Excise
Adv. Baiju N.S.
Respondent(s)
Dileepan
Rajeswaran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge
Disposed
Call on
FOR HEARING
Prosecution Evidence
Produce witnesses
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Call on |
| 13-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 20-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 11-02-2026 | Produce witnesses |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala Excise v. Dileepan and Rajeswaran (S.C No. 1181/2019) The court acquitted both accused of charges under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for allegedly engaging in illicit arrack brewing. The prosecution failed to establish its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the two witnesses examined denied seeing the alleged detection and seizure, the key investigating officers were not produced despite repeated opportunities, and most crucially, neither the seized contraband nor certified inventory photographs—mandatory primary evidence under Section 53A(5) of the Abkari Act—were produced, with the prosecution reporting the contraband lost. The court found no oral evidence could compensate for this absence of primary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala Excise v. Dileepan and Rajeswaran (S.C No. 1181/2019) The court acquitted both accused of charges under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for allegedly engaging in illicit arrack brewing. The prosecution failed to establish its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the two witnesses examined denied seeing the alleged detection and seizure, the key investigating officers were not produced despite repeated opportunities, and most crucially, neither the seized contraband nor certified inventory photographs—mandatory primary evidence under Section 53A(5) of the Abkari Act—were produced, with the prosecution reporting the contraband lost. The court found no oral evidence could compensate for this absence of primary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts