Rajasthan Government vs CHUNNILAL Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA — 61/2019

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 465,420. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 28th March 2026.

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJJH070017402018

Case disposed

Filing Number

1732/2018

Filing Date

14-12-2018

Registration No

61/2019

Registration Date

19-01-2019

Court

ACJM MJM Khetri Taluka HQ

Judge

3-JM

Decision Date

28th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation

FIR Details

FIR Number

159

Police Station

KHETRI NAGAR

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 465,420
Arms Act Section 3,25

Petitioner(s)

Rajasthan Government

Adv. APP1

Respondent(s)

CHUNNILAL Advocate - SH. MAHIPAL DORATA

Hearing History

Judge: 3-JM

28-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Defence Evidence

19-03-2026

Defence Evidence

12-03-2026

Defence Evidence

10-03-2026

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

Final Orders / Judgements

28-03-2026
Copy of document.

Summary of Case 61/2019 Court Decision (March 28, 2026): The Judicial Magistrate of Khetdi found accused Chunnilal (19 years old) guilty under IPC Section 465 (forgery) and acquitted him under Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 420 IPC. Instead of direct imprisonment, the court granted him probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, imposing bail conditions of ₹10,000 each with one year supervision, plus ₹2,000 prosecution costs—considering his youth, clean record, and first offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 61/2019 Court Decision (March 28, 2026): The Judicial Magistrate of Khetdi found accused Chunnilal (19 years old) guilty under IPC Section 465 (forgery) and acquitted him under Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 420 IPC. Instead of direct imprisonment, the court granted him probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, imposing bail conditions of ₹10,000 each with one year supervision, plus ₹2,000 prosecution costs—considering his youth, clean record, and first offense. 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

ACJM MJM Khetri Taluka HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case