state vs Ram singh urf harkaran — 1129/2014
Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 20th May 2026.
CRI. CASE
CNR: RJBE060000042009
Filing Number
125/2014
Filing Date
06-01-2009
Registration No
1129/2014
Registration Date
06-01-2009
Court
ACJM JM- Jaitaran Taluka Court
Judge
2-ACJM
Decision Date
20th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Petitioner(s)
state
Respondent(s)
Ram singh urf harkaran
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ACJM
Disposed
Appearance of accused
Appearance of accused
Appearance of accused
Appearance of accused
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-05-2026 | Appearance of accused |
| 06-05-2026 | Appearance of accused |
| 27-04-2026 | Appearance of accused |
| 22-04-2026 | Appearance of accused |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts