State Government APP vs lhoresingh Advocate - PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA — 1242/2018

Case under Excise (Spirits) Act Section 16,54. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJDH020021462018

Filing Number

2130/2018

Filing Date

02-Aug-2018

Registration No

1242/2018

Registration Date

02-Aug-2018

Court

CJM ACJM JM Dholpur District HQ

Judge

6-Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

27-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 15-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

53

Police Station

Excise Police Station, Dholpur

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

Excise (Spirits) Act Section 16,54

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

    Adv. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.lhoresingh Advocate - PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    Copy of judgementView PDF

    Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Dholpur acquitted Lohare (son of Banwari Lal), aged 25, of charges under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of custody for the alleged 2 liters of illicit liquor seized, as the actual material was never produced in court and only two police witnesses testified without any independent corroboration. The acquittal was granted due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt regarding whether the seized substance actually belonged to the accused, as the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  9. 26-Feb-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  11. 17-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  12. 29-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  13. 27-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  14. 17-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  15. 05-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  16. 09-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  17. 07-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  18. 04-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

  19. 31-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

  20. 09-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

  21. 19-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

  22. 30-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

  23. 03-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

  24. 12-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

  25. 31-Jan-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  26. 28-Oct-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  27. 29-Jul-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  28. 11-May-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  29. 31-Jan-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  30. 20-Oct-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  31. 22-Jul-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  32. 15-May-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate

  33. 09-Feb-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  34. 18-Nov-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  35. 06-Jul-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  36. 29-May-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  37. 17-Mar-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  38. 18-Jan-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  39. 15-Nov-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  40. 12-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  41. 24-Jul-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  42. 04-Jun-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  43. 30-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  44. 13-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  45. 11-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  46. 18-Mar-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  47. 02-Mar-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  48. 31-Jan-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  49. 22-Nov-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  50. 03-Nov-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  51. 04-Oct-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  52. 25-Sep-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate-I

  53. 01-Sep-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  54. 02-Aug-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1242/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Dholpur acquitted Lohare (son of Banwari Lal), aged 25, of charges under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of custody for the alleged 2 liters of illicit liquor seized, as the actual material was never produced in court and only two police witnesses testified without any independent corroboration. The acquittal was granted due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt regarding whether the seized substance actually belonged to the accused, as the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case