State of Kerala Excise vs Dileepan — 101181/2019

Case under Abkari Act Section us.55(g). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLKM270004792019

Filing Number

100289/2019

Filing Date

22-Oct-2019

Registration No

101181/2019

Registration Date

22-Oct-2019

Court

Sub Court Karunagappally

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

27

Police Station

Karunagappally Excise Range

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Abkari Act Section us.55(g)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala Excise

    Adv. Baiju N.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dileepan

  2. 2.Rajeswaran

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  4. 28-Mar-2026

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sub Judge

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  8. 22-Jan-2026

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  9. 11-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sub Judge

  10. 17-Nov-2025

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  11. 24-Sep-2025

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  12. 08-Jul-2025

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  13. 21-May-2025

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  14. 21-Jan-2025

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  15. 20-Dec-2024

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  16. 08-Nov-2024

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  17. 07-Sep-2024

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  18. 17-Jul-2024

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  19. 04-Jun-2024

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  20. 03-Jun-2024

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  21. 19-Dec-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  22. 12-Sep-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  23. 27-Jun-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  24. 23-May-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  25. 12-Jan-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  26. 23-Sep-2022

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  27. 13-Jun-2022

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  28. 20-Jan-2022

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  29. 20-Sep-2021

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  30. 23-Jun-2021

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  31. 02-Mar-2021

    No Further Time

    Sub Judge

  32. 23-Nov-2020

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  33. 18-Aug-2020

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  34. 19-Jun-2020

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  35. 26-Mar-2020

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  36. 08-Jan-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  37. 22-Oct-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 101181/2019

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case