STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs KAILASH Advocate - PRADHAN LAL JAT — 81/2019

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJAJ200001042019

Filing Number

104/2019

Filing Date

06-Mar-2019

Registration No

81/2019

Registration Date

06-Mar-2019

Court

JM SARWAR TALUKA CRIMINAL

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

345

Police Station

Sarwar

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 379
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act Section 4,21

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KAILASH Advocate - PRADHAN LAL JAT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Rajasthan v. Kailash (81/2019) Court Decision: The accused Kailash was acquitted of both charges under Section 379 IPC (theft) and Section 4/21 MMDR Act (illegal mineral transportation). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: While the court acknowledged that Section 22 of the MMDR Act requires authorized complaints for offenses under that statute, it ruled prosecution could proceed under IPC Section 379 for theft. However, critical investigative failures undermined the case: only police personnel served as witnesses (no independent witnesses), no FSL testing confirmed the material was gravel, no weight measurements were recorded, and the investigating officer died during proceedings. Combined with one hostile witness who denied the accused was driving, these deficiencies prevented establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Jm

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  8. 23-Mar-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Jm

  9. 19-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  10. 19-Mar-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Jm

  11. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  12. 13-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  13. 09-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  14. 09-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  15. 23-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  16. 23-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  17. 12-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  18. 12-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  19. 07-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  20. 07-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  21. 20-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  22. 07-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  23. 08-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  24. 30-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  25. 15-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  26. 22-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  27. 11-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  28. 14-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  29. 02-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  30. 08-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  31. 04-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  32. 01-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  33. 06-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  34. 12-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  35. 13-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  36. 17-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  37. 12-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  38. 08-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  39. 20-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  40. 27-Apr-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  41. 24-Feb-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  42. 12-Jan-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  43. 23-Oct-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  44. 14-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  45. 20-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  46. 22-May-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  47. 26-Apr-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  48. 15-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  49. 01-Dec-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  50. 02-Sep-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  51. 25-Jun-2020

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  52. 02-Jun-2020

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  53. 16-Mar-2020

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  54. 27-Jan-2020

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  55. 29-Nov-2019

    Service of Non-bailable warrant

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  56. 02-Nov-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  57. 27-Aug-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  58. 07-Aug-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  59. 18-Jun-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Civil Judge (J.d.) & Judicial Magistrate

  60. 26-Apr-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  61. 06-Mar-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 81/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Rajasthan v. Kailash (81/2019) Court Decision: The accused Kailash was acquitted of both charges under Section 379 IPC (theft) and Section 4/21 MMDR Act (illegal mineral transportation). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: While the court acknowledged that Section 22 of the MMDR Act requires authorized complaints for offenses under that statute, it ruled prosecution could proceed under IPC Section 379 for theft. However, critical investigative failures undermined the case: only police personnel served as witnesses (no independent witnesses), no FSL testing confirmed the material was gravel, no weight measurements were recorded, and the investigating officer died during proceedings. Combined with one hostile witness who denied the accused was driving, these deficiencies prevented establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case