State vs Mausamdeen Advocate - Rahman khan — 427/2012
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379, 411. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 08th April 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJAL290000142012
Filing Number
427/2012
Filing Date
24-11-2012
Registration No
427/2012
Registration Date
24-11-2012
Court
CJ JM Ramgarh HQ
Judge
1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
42
Police Station
NOUGANWA
Year
2012
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Respondent(s)
Mausamdeen Advocate - Rahman khan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 23-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 07-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 427/2012 The court acquitted the accused, Mausamdeen (age 36), of theft charges under IPC Sections 379 and 411, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he stole the motorcycle (Hero Honda Splendor, Reg. No. RJ31SD7677) recovered from his possession on 28 September 2012. The judgment identified significant evidentiary gaps: no eyewitness testimony to the alleged theft, inconsistencies in police documentation and witness statements regarding motorcycle details, and inadequate proof that the seized vehicle was actually stolen property rather than lawfully possessed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 427/2012 The court acquitted the accused, Mausamdeen (age 36), of theft charges under IPC Sections 379 and 411, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he stole the motorcycle (Hero Honda Splendor, Reg. No. RJ31SD7677) recovered from his possession on 28 September 2012. The judgment identified significant evidentiary gaps: no eyewitness testimony to the alleged theft, inconsistencies in police documentation and witness statements regarding motorcycle details, and inadequate proof that the seized vehicle was actually stolen property rather than lawfully possessed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts