State vs DEEPAK Advocate - Ramkishan Prajapati — 635/2021
Case under Arms Act Section 4,25. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 17th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBD080012942021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1287/2021
Filing Date
24-11-2021
Registration No
635/2021
Registration Date
24-11-2021
Court
ACJM JM K Patan Taluka
Judge
2-ACJM
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation
FIR Details
FIR Number
129
Police Station
K.Patan
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. PROSECUTION OFFICER
Respondent(s)
DEEPAK Advocate - Ramkishan Prajapati
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ACJM
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 13-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 27-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kota convicted the accused, Deepak (age 21), under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, for illegally possessing a 30 cm long iron dagger/knife with a 15 cm blade without proper authorization on March 20, 2021. The court sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 and supervised release on probation, finding the prosecution's eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence sufficient to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kota convicted the accused, Deepak (age 21), under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, for illegally possessing a 30 cm long iron dagger/knife with a 15 cm blade without proper authorization on March 20, 2021. The court sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 and supervised release on probation, finding the prosecution's eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence sufficient to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts