State vs Papuram Advocate - Hanuman chodhry — 1017/2014

Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Sentenced on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

Raj Exe Act - Rajasthan Excise Act

CNR: RJBK080000212014

Filing Number

2253/2014

Filing Date

07-Jan-2014

Registration No

1017/2014

Registration Date

07-Jan-2014

Court

ACJM JM Nokha Taluka HQ criminal

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Convicted and Sentenced

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

426

Police Station

Nokha Police Station

Year

2013

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. Rampratap bishnoi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Papuram Advocate - Hanuman chodhry

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary of State v. Papuram (Case 1017/2014) The court convicted Papuram for illegal possession and sale of alcohol in violation of Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. On August 4, 2013, police discovered multiple cases of Indian and foreign liquor bottles without proper licenses in a hotel room where Papuram was present. The court found prosecution witnesses credible despite minor discrepancies and ruled that absence of independent witnesses doesn't vitiate recovery when official evidence is trustworthy. Papuram was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 20-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 11-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 02-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 03-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 27-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 03-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 01-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 29-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 19-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 11-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 11-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 11-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 05-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 03-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 02-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 19-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 10-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 09-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 07-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 12-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 30-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 19-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 12-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 25-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 08-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 16-Mar-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 19-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 15-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 05-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 18-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 15-Feb-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  42. 06-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  43. 15-Jun-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  44. 11-Feb-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  45. 30-Sep-2020

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  46. 12-Jun-2020

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  47. 07-Apr-2020

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  48. 19-Nov-2019

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  49. 31-Jul-2019

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  50. 23-May-2019

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  51. 29-Jan-2019

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  52. 06-Sep-2018

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  53. 04-May-2018

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  54. 02-Feb-2018

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  55. 15-Sep-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  56. 21-Jul-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  57. 17-May-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  58. 10-May-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  59. 08-Mar-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  60. 08-Feb-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  61. 18-Jan-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  62. 23-Nov-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  63. 05-Oct-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  64. 03-Aug-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  65. 18-May-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  66. 27-Apr-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  67. 14-Mar-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  68. 08-Feb-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  69. 30-Nov-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  70. 12-Oct-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  71. 31-Aug-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  72. 18-Aug-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  73. 28-Jul-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  74. 30-Jun-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  75. 16-Jun-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  76. 04-Jun-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  77. 03-Feb-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  78. 30-Oct-2014

    Charge

    Acjm

  79. 20-Jun-2014

    Charge

    Acjm

  80. 07-Mar-2014

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  81. 07-Jan-2014

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1017/2014

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of State v. Papuram (Case 1017/2014) The court convicted Papuram for illegal possession and sale of alcohol in violation of Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. On August 4, 2013, police discovered multiple cases of Indian and foreign liquor bottles without proper licenses in a hotel room where Papuram was present. The court found prosecution witnesses credible despite minor discrepancies and ruled that absence of independent witnesses doesn't vitiate recovery when official evidence is trustworthy. Papuram was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case