State of Kerala - Forest Range, Erumely vs REJI MATHEW — 364/2022
Case under Wild Life (protection) Act Section Sec.2(31)b,39(b),49(b),51. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th April 2026.
FIR - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
CNR: KLKT190024962022
Filing Number
2496/2022
Filing Date
26-07-2022
Registration No
364/2022
Registration Date
29-07-2022
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-2, Kanjirappally
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Decision Date
04th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
4
Police Station
Forest Range Office - Erumely
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala - Forest Range, Erumely
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor, JFCM 2, Kanjirappally
Respondent(s)
REJI MATHEW
AL AMEEN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Disposed
For Hearing
Order/Judgement
For Hearing
Adjourned
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 31-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 25-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 03-03-2026 | Adjourned |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Reji Mathew & Al Ameen (CC 364/2022) The court acquitted both accused of Wildlife Protection Act violations for illegal ivory possession. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to three critical deficiencies: conflicting witness testimony created ambiguity about the exact place of occurrence and court jurisdiction; no species identification test was conducted to confirm the seized items were actually ivory; and confession statements recorded by a Forest Range Officer lacked legal validity since only Assistant Directors of Wildlife Preservation or authorized Assistant Conservators of Forests may record such statements under Section 50(8) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Reji Mathew & Al Ameen (CC 364/2022) The court acquitted both accused of Wildlife Protection Act violations for illegal ivory possession. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to three critical deficiencies: conflicting witness testimony created ambiguity about the exact place of occurrence and court jurisdiction; no species identification test was conducted to confirm the seized items were actually ivory; and confession statements recorded by a Forest Range Officer lacked legal validity since only Assistant Directors of Wildlife Preservation or authorized Assistant Conservators of Forests may record such statements under Section 50(8) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts