STATE vs PREM SINGH ETC Advocate - BRIJKISHOR SHARMA — 4975/2015

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 447. Disposed: Contested--Decreed after Full Trial on 06th April 2026.

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJDH170000332015

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

4975/2015

Filing Date

01-06-2011

Registration No

4975/2015

Registration Date

01-06-2011

Court

CJ JM Sarmathura Taluka

Judge

1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistate

Decision Date

06th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed after Full Trial

FIR Details

FIR Number

95

Police Station

Sarmathura Police station

Year

2011

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 447

Petitioner(s)

STATE

Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

PREM SINGH ETC Advocate - BRIJKISHOR SHARMA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistate

06-04-2026

Disposed

28-03-2026

Prosecution Evidence

09-03-2026

Prosecution Evidence

09-02-2026

Prosecution Evidence

19-01-2026

Prosecution Evidence

Interim Orders

17-06-2023
Criminal Judgement

Case Summary The court acquitted three accused persons (Premsingh, Rupsingh, and Remujhi) of charges under IPC Section 447 and the Public Property Damage Prevention Act, 1984, finding insufficient evidence that they unauthorized encroached upon and damaged forest department boundary walls in reserved forest land. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove the defendants' involvement, as no forest official testified to witnessing the encroachment, no revenue records were produced to establish forest department ownership, and contradictions existed in witness statements regarding whether damage was temporary or permanent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court acquitted three accused persons (Premsingh, Rupsingh, and Remujhi) of charges under IPC Section 447 and the Public Property Damage Prevention Act, 1984, finding insufficient evidence that they unauthorized encroached upon and damaged forest department boundary walls in reserved forest land. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove the defendants' involvement, as no forest official testified to witnessing the encroachment, no revenue records were produced to establish forest department ownership, and contradictions existed in witness statements regarding whether damage was temporary or permanent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CJ JM Sarmathura Taluka All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case