state vs Ram singh urf harkaran — 1129/2014

Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 20th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRI. CASE

CNR: RJBE060000042009

Filing Number

125/2014

Filing Date

06-Jan-2009

Registration No

1129/2014

Registration Date

06-Jan-2009

Court

ACJM JM- Jaitaran Taluka Court

Judge

2-Acjm

Decision Date

20-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.state

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ram singh urf harkaran

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-May-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: CIS No. 1129/2014 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, Byawar acquitted Ram Singh alias Harkaran of charges under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, due to reasonable doubt. The court found critical procedural failures in the evidence chain and sample collection process that undermined the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified substantial deficiencies: the independent witness (PW-01) denied seeing the accused at the scene; the chain of custody was broken at multiple points; the sample vehicle and forwarding document lacked proper sealing integrity; back-dating of records was evident; and the approval authority failed to independently verify the seized milk or follow mandatory procedures. These combined failures meant the prosecution could not prove the adulteration charge with certainty, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt under criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-May-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 13-May-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  5. 06-May-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  6. 27-Apr-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  7. 22-Apr-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  8. 13-Apr-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  9. 06-Apr-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  10. 23-Mar-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  11. 16-Mar-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  12. 09-Mar-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  13. 16-Feb-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  14. 09-Feb-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  15. 28-Jan-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  16. 17-Jan-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  17. 12-Jan-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  18. 06-Jan-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  19. 05-Jan-2026

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  20. 22-Dec-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  21. 12-Dec-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  22. 29-Nov-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  23. 10-Nov-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  24. 27-Oct-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  25. 17-Oct-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  26. 04-Oct-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  27. 17-Sep-2025

    —View PDF

  28. 17-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  29. 12-Sep-2025

    —View PDF

  30. 12-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  31. 09-Sep-2025

    —View PDF

  32. 09-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  33. 07-Aug-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  34. 09-Jul-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  35. 04-Jun-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  36. 29-Apr-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  37. 19-Apr-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  38. 19-Mar-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  39. 01-Mar-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  40. 30-Jan-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  41. 18-Nov-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  42. 21-Oct-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  43. 30-Sep-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  44. 12-Sep-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  45. 21-Aug-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Jm

  46. 22-Jul-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  47. 16-Jul-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  48. 11-Jun-2024

    Restored

    Acjm

  49. 17-Dec-2021

    Disposed

    Acjm

  50. 11-Oct-2021

    Compliance

    Acjm

  51. 16-Aug-2021

    Compliance

    Acjm

  52. 16-Jul-2021

    Compliance

    Acjm

  53. 17-Feb-2021

    Compliance

    Jm

  54. 04-Sep-2020

    Compliance

    Jm

  55. 30-May-2020

    Compliance

    Jm

  56. 24-Mar-2020

    Compliance

    Jm

  57. 11-Feb-2020

    Compliance

    Jm

  58. 26-Nov-2019

    Compliance

    Jm

  59. 31-Aug-2019

    Compliance

    Jm

  60. 04-Jul-2019

    Compliance

    Jm

  61. 20-Apr-2019

    Compliance

    Jm

  62. 12-Feb-2019

    Compliance

    Jm

  63. 04-Dec-2018

    Compliance

    Jm

  64. 15-Oct-2018

    Compliance

    Jm

  65. 14-Sep-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  66. 13-Sep-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  67. 04-Sep-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  68. 26-Jul-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  69. 21-Jun-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  70. 17-May-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  71. 18-Apr-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  72. 12-Mar-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  73. 20-Feb-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  74. 19-Jan-2018

    Compliance

    Acjm

  75. 15-Dec-2017

    Compliance

    Acjm

  76. 01-Dec-2017

    Compliance

    Acjm

  77. 15-Nov-2017

    Compliance

    Acjm

  78. 27-Oct-2017

    Compliance

    Acjm

  79. 13-Oct-2017

    Appearance of accused

    Acjm

  80. 07-Oct-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  81. 23-Sep-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  82. 14-Sep-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  83. 30-Aug-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  84. 28-Jul-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  85. 01-Jul-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  86. 07-Jun-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  87. 21-Mar-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  88. 20-Feb-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  89. 20-Jan-2017

    Appearence

    Acjm

  90. 22-Nov-2016

    Appearence

    Acjm

  91. 22-Oct-2016

    Appearence

    Acjm

  92. 07-Sep-2016

    Appearence

    Acjm

  93. 12-Aug-2016

    Appearence

    Acjm

  94. 13-Jun-2016

    Appearence

    Acjm

  95. 08-Mar-2016

    Appearence

    Acjm

  96. 11-Jan-2016

    Appearence

    Acjm

  97. 19-Nov-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  98. 12-Oct-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  99. 15-Sep-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  100. 13-Aug-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  101. 10-Jul-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  102. 04-Jun-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  103. 27-Apr-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  104. 20-Mar-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  105. 02-Feb-2015

    Appearence

    Acjm

  106. 20-Dec-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  107. 20-Nov-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  108. 27-Sep-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  109. 16-Aug-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  110. 02-Jul-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  111. 22-May-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  112. 02-Apr-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  113. 17-Feb-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  114. 07-Jan-2014

    Appearence

    Acjm

  115. 19-Nov-2013

    Appearence

    Acjm

  116. 16-Sep-2013

    Appearence

    Acjm

  117. 08-Aug-2013

    Appearence

    Acjm

  118. 28-Jun-2013

    Appearence

    Acjm

  119. 07-May-2013

    Appearence

    Acjm

  120. 07-Mar-2013

    Appearence

    Acjm

  121. 09-Jan-2013

    Appearence

    Acjm

  122. 19-Nov-2012

    Appearence

    Acjm

  123. 22-Sep-2012

    Appearence

    Acjm

  124. 23-May-2012

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  125. 06-Jan-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1129/2014

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CIS No. 1129/2014 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, Byawar acquitted Ram Singh alias Harkaran of charges under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, due to reasonable doubt. The court found critical procedural failures in the evidence chain and sample collection process that undermined the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified substantial deficiencies: the independent witness (PW-01) denied seeing the accused at the scene; the chain of custody was broken at multiple points; the sample vehicle and forwarding document lacked proper sealing integrity; back-dating of records was evident; and the approval authority failed to independently verify the seized milk or follow mandatory procedures. These combined failures meant the prosecution could not prove the adulteration charge with certainty, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt under criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case