State (APP) vs Hansraj — 42/2026
Case under Indian Forest Act Section 32,33,41,42. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 07th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJJW080000972026
Filing Number
97/2026
Filing Date
20-Jan-2026
Registration No
42/2026
Registration Date
20-Jan-2026
Court
ACJM JM Aklera Jhalawar District
Judge
22-Scj and Acjm
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 02-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
62
Police Station
Aklera
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State (APP)
Respondent(s)
-
1.Hansraj
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Akola, Jhalawad acquitted Hansraj Pura Lal of charges under Sections 32, 33, 41, and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. The court found insufficient evidence that the accused engaged in unauthorized mineral extraction, as prosecution witnesses failed to provide credible testimony or documentary proof (photographs/videos) of the mining activity or identify the truck operator involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
Scj and Acjm
-
25-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
24-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
23-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
18-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
16-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
12-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
09-Feb-2026
Framing of Charge/ Plea
Scj and Acjm
-
07-Feb-2026
Framing of Charge/ Plea
Scj and Acjm
-
03-Feb-2026
Framing of Charge/ Plea
Scj and Acjm
-
28-Jan-2026
Framing of Charge/ Plea
Scj and Acjm
-
20-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 42/2026
Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Akola, Jhalawad acquitted Hansraj Pura Lal of charges under Sections 32, 33, 41, and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. The court found insufficient evidence that the accused engaged in unauthorized mineral extraction, as prosecution witnesses failed to provide credible testimony or documentary proof (photographs/videos) of the mining activity or identify the truck operator involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts