State of Kerala vs Pradeepan A4 Advocate - REVATHI K — 1340/2024
Case under Kerala Forest Act Section 47(A)(B)(c). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 05th May 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKN180045582024
Filing Number
3906/2024
Filing Date
04-11-2024
Registration No
1340/2024
Registration Date
04-11-2024
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba
Judge
2-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
16
Police Station
FRO, Taliparamba
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala
Adv. The APP
Respondent(s)
Pradeepan A4 Advocate - REVATHI K
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Adjourned
For further hearing
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 13-04-2026 | Adjourned |
| 27-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted accused Pradeepan.P. of charges under the Kerala Forest Act 1961 for allegedly illegally cutting and removing sandalwood trees from a crematorium. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, particularly due to the non-examination of crematorium office bearers as witnesses, lack of evidence proving the crematorium's existence, and the accused's claim of being hired as coolie workers. The court held that when doubt arises in prosecution evidence, it must favor the accused, warranting acquittal under Section 248(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted accused Pradeepan.P. of charges under the Kerala Forest Act 1961 for allegedly illegally cutting and removing sandalwood trees from a crematorium. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, particularly due to the non-examination of crematorium office bearers as witnesses, lack of evidence proving the crematorium's existence, and the accused's claim of being hired as coolie workers. The court held that when doubt arises in prosecution evidence, it must favor the accused, warranting acquittal under Section 248(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts