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

Case disposed

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

Abkari Act Section us.55(g)

Petitioner(s)

State of Kerala Excise

Adv. Baiju N.S.

Respondent(s)

Dileepan

Rajeswaran

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge

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

01-04-2026
Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Sub Court Karunagappally All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case