The Excise Inspector vs Vattakkovval Sreedharan — 847/2018

Case under Abkari Act Section 55(g)1of1077. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLKN190001952018

Filing Number

847/2018

Filing Date

03-Oct-2018

Registration No

847/2018

Registration Date

16-Oct-2018

Court

Sub Court, Payyannur

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 26-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

142

Police Station

Excise Payyannur

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Abkari Act Section 55(g)1of1077

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The Excise Inspector

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vattakkovval Sreedharan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: 847/2018 The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Vattakkovval Sreedharan of charges under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for possessing 35 liters of wash (unlicensed alcohol). The court found fatal procedural defects: the material object produced (a can) did not match the seized article (a barrel) per seizure records; the investigating officer unlawfully destroyed contraband without authorized sanction; no photographs or inventory were taken; and the unbroken chain of custody was not established. The Abkari Act requires strict statutory compliance, not substantial compliance, for prosecution in such cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Sub Judge

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    For 313

    Sub Judge

  8. 17-Mar-2026

    For evidence

    Sub Judge

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sub Judge

  10. 30-Jan-2026

    call on

    Sub Judge

  11. 23-Jan-2026

    call on

    Sub Judge

  12. 24-Nov-2025

    call on

    Sub Judge

  13. 26-Sep-2025

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  14. 27-Jun-2025

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  15. 23-Oct-2024

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  16. 23-Aug-2024

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  17. 23-Jul-2024

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  18. 09-Apr-2024

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  19. 17-Jan-2024

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  20. 13-Sep-2023

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  21. 18-Jul-2022

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  22. 28-May-2022

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  23. 24-Feb-2022

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  24. 07-Dec-2021

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  25. 23-Sep-2021

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  26. 24-Aug-2021

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  27. 28-May-2021

    Case Re-posted to

    Sub Judge

  28. 05-Mar-2021

    Case Re-posted to

    Sub Judge

  29. 12-Jan-2021

    Case Re-posted to

    Sub Judge

  30. 15-Oct-2020

    Case Re-posted to

    Sub Judge

  31. 26-Jun-2020

    Case Re-posted to

    Sub Judge

  32. 02-Mar-2020

    Judge on leave / duty

    Sub Judge

  33. 12-Dec-2019

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  34. 16-Oct-2019

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  35. 30-May-2019

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  36. 04-Jan-2019

    For framing charge

    Sub Judge

  37. 03-Jan-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 03-Oct-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 847/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 847/2018 The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Vattakkovval Sreedharan of charges under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for possessing 35 liters of wash (unlicensed alcohol). The court found fatal procedural defects: the material object produced (a can) did not match the seized article (a barrel) per seizure records; the investigating officer unlawfully destroyed contraband without authorized sanction; no photographs or inventory were taken; and the unbroken chain of custody was not established. The Abkari Act requires strict statutory compliance, not substantial compliance, for prosecution in such cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case