State of Kerala vs Valsala.P.P Advocate - P.P. Sandeepkumar, Payyannur — 953/2018

Case under Police Act, 1960 (Kerala) Section 117(d). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted u/s 248(1) CrPC on 31st March 2026.

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLKN210027102018

Case disposed

Filing Number

953/2018

Filing Date

10-10-2018

Registration No

953/2018

Registration Date

10-10-2018

Court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur

Judge

3-Judicial First Class Magistrate

Decision Date

31st March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted u/s 248(1) CrPC

FIR Details

FIR Number

1536

Police Station

Pazhayangadi

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Police Act, 1960 (Kerala) Section 117(d)
Crl.mp/1/2026 Classification : Application to Recall Witness Section Valsala.P.PState of Kerala

Petitioner(s)

State of Kerala

Respondent(s)

Valsala.P.P Advocate - P.P. Sandeepkumar, Payyannur

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Judicial First Class Magistrate

31-03-2026

Disposed

26-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

25-03-2026

FOR HEARING

19-03-2026

Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

17-03-2026

Call with MP

Final Orders / Judgements

31-03-2026
Judgement

Case Summary The court acquitted Valsala P P under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, finding her not guilty of making a false statement to police under Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately made a false statement with knowledge of its falsity and intent to mislead police, as critical evidence including call detail records, tower location data, and the factual investigation report were not produced in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court acquitted Valsala P P under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, finding her not guilty of making a false statement to police under Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately made a false statement with knowledge of its falsity and intent to mislead police, as critical evidence including call detail records, tower location data, and the factual investigation report were not produced in court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case