State vs DHANRAJ Advocate - Ramkishan Prajapati — 24/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBD080000472021

Filing Number

47/2021

Filing Date

11-Jan-2021

Registration No

24/2021

Registration Date

11-Jan-2021

Court

ACJM JM K Patan Taluka

Judge

2-Acjm

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

102

Police Station

K.Patan

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. PROSECUTION OFFICER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHANRAJ Advocate - Ramkishan Prajapati

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Dhanraj (Ramkishan Prajapati) Case No.: 24/2021 Court: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, K. Patan, Bundelkhand District, Rajasthan Decision Date: May 15, 2026 Court's Decision The accused Dhanraj was acquitted of charges under IPC Section 379 (theft) and MMDR Act Section 4/21 due to reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant illegally mined and transported sand/minerals without proper authorization, as no independent witness corroborated the seizure, no expert verification confirmed the sand's origin, and critical procedural gaps existed in the investigation. Key Reasoning The court found insufficient evidence: the seized sand's source location was never properly verified, no mining department official testified regarding authorization, and the investigating officer failed to conduct proper site inspection. The defendant's confession alone—made in police custody—was insufficient to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt under established evidentiary standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-May-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 04-May-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  5. 30-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  6. 28-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  7. 24-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  8. 18-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  9. 30-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  10. 27-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  11. 23-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  12. 19-Mar-2026

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

    Acjm

  13. 17-Mar-2026

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

    Acjm

  14. 16-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 07-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 25-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 17-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 19-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 14-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 26-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 30-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 30-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 22-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 16-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 06-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 03-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 28-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 21-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 20-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 16-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 30-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 28-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 26-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 30-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 07-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 10-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 21-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 18-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 13-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 10-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 10-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  42. 19-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  43. 24-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  44. 19-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  45. 08-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  46. 26-May-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  47. 20-Jan-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  48. 27-Oct-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  49. 20-Jul-2021

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Acjm

  50. 07-Apr-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  51. 11-Jan-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 24/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Dhanraj (Ramkishan Prajapati) Case No.: 24/2021 Court: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, K. Patan, Bundelkhand District, Rajasthan Decision Date: May 15, 2026 Court's Decision The accused Dhanraj was acquitted of charges under IPC Section 379 (theft) and MMDR Act Section 4/21 due to reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant illegally mined and transported sand/minerals without proper authorization, as no independent witness corroborated the seizure, no expert verification confirmed the sand's origin, and critical procedural gaps existed in the investigation. Key Reasoning The court found insufficient evidence: the seized sand's source location was never properly verified, no mining department official testified regarding authorization, and the investigating officer failed to conduct proper site inspection. The defendant's confession alone—made in police custody—was insufficient to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt under established evidentiary standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case