Rajasthan Government vs BIRJRAJ URF GOLU Advocate - Mo. Ibrahim khan — 55/2026

Case under Rajasthan Noise Control Act 1963 Section 4,6. Disposed: Uncontested--Convicted on Plead Guilty / Plea Bargaining on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBR130001712026

e-Filing Number

10-03-2026

Filing Number

171/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

55/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

JM Kishanganj Taluka

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Convicted on Plead Guilty / Plea Bargaining

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0015

Police Station

Nahargarh Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Rajasthan Noise Control Act 1963 Section 4,6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajasthan Government

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BIRJRAJ URF GOLU Advocate - Mo. Ibrahim khan

  2. 2.Not Applicable

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate convicted accused Brijraj (age 25) under Section 4/6 of the Rajasthan Noise Pollution Control Act for noise pollution offences. However, considering it was his first offense, his voluntary plea admission, and spirit of Lok Adalat (community court), the court granted him probation under the Probation of Offenders Act with a warning against future violations and imposed prosecution costs of ₹200, thereby releasing him without imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate convicted accused Brijraj (age 25) under Section 4/6 of the Rajasthan Noise Pollution Control Act for noise pollution offences. However, considering it was his first offense, his voluntary plea admission, and spirit of Lok Adalat (community court), the court granted him probation under the Probation of Offenders Act with a warning against future violations and imposed prosecution costs of ₹200, thereby releasing him without imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case