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
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
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
PREM SINGH ETC Advocate - BRIJKISHOR SHARMA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistate
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts