Rajasthan Government vs Dalip Advocate - Rakesh Kumar Saharan — 3/2015

Case under Essential Commodities Act Section 3/7. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Ec Act - Essential Commodity Act

CNR: RJCH020016042015

Filing Number

1372/2015

Filing Date

25-Jun-2015

Registration No

3/2015

Registration Date

28-Oct-2015

Court

CJM ACJM JM DISTRCIT HQ CHURU

Judge

3-Sr Civil Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

63

Police Station

Hamirwas

Year

2015

Acts & Sections

Essential Commodities Act Section 3/7

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajasthan Government

    Adv. App

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dalip Advocate - Rakesh Kumar Saharan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Rajasthan v. Dalip (Case 3/2015) Court Decision: The accused Dalip Singh s/o Shishauram (age 31, resident of Lohsina Bada) was acquitted of charges under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Key Facts: On 8 April 2015, police intercepted a vehicle (RJ-10-GA-6779) at Harpaloo checkpoint carrying 800 liters of diesel in four drums and 60 liters of petrol in two containers without proper licenses or permits. The accused, identified as the vehicle owner, could not produce authorization documents required under the Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing and Control) Order, 1990. Court's Reasoning: The Chief Judicial Magistrate found critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witnesses were examined, proper documentary procedure under Section 41A CrPC was not followed, and the prosecution failed to establish the quantity permissible for private storage. The court determined the prosecution could not prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt despite circumstantial evidence of unauthorized fuel transportation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Sr Civil Judge

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  6. 12-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  7. 24-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  8. 01-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  9. 09-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  10. 07-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  11. 15-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  12. 17-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  13. 29-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  14. 27-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  15. 19-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  16. 26-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  17. 27-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  18. 15-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  19. 20-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  20. 06-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  21. 19-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  22. 06-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  23. 12-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  24. 11-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  25. 24-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  26. 20-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  27. 30-Sep-2022

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  28. 10-Jun-2022

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  29. 19-Feb-2022

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  30. 01-Nov-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  31. 19-Jul-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  32. 10-May-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  33. 20-Apr-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  34. 01-Dec-2020

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  35. 14-Jul-2020

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  36. 25-Feb-2020

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  37. 08-Nov-2019

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Sr Civil Judge

  38. 20-Jul-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  39. 27-Feb-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  40. 04-Jan-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  41. 12-Oct-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  42. 19-Jun-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  43. 27-Mar-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  44. 17-Nov-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

  45. 26-Aug-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  46. 16-May-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  47. 04-Mar-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge

  48. 14-Dec-2016

    Charge

    Sr Civil Judge

  49. 03-Sep-2016

    Charge

    Sr Civil Judge

  50. 24-Jun-2016

    Charge

    Sr Civil Judge

  51. 04-May-2016

    Charge

    Sr Civil Judge

  52. 06-Feb-2016

    Charge

    Sr Civil Judge

  53. 28-Oct-2015

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  54. 25-Jun-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3/2015

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Rajasthan v. Dalip (Case 3/2015) Court Decision: The accused Dalip Singh s/o Shishauram (age 31, resident of Lohsina Bada) was acquitted of charges under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Key Facts: On 8 April 2015, police intercepted a vehicle (RJ-10-GA-6779) at Harpaloo checkpoint carrying 800 liters of diesel in four drums and 60 liters of petrol in two containers without proper licenses or permits. The accused, identified as the vehicle owner, could not produce authorization documents required under the Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing and Control) Order, 1990. Court's Reasoning: The Chief Judicial Magistrate found critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witnesses were examined, proper documentary procedure under Section 41A CrPC was not followed, and the prosecution failed to establish the quantity permissible for private storage. The court determined the prosecution could not prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt despite circumstantial evidence of unauthorized fuel transportation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case