State vs Jai Parkash (Phase-V) Advocate - Krishan Kumar Jalap — 3176/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 419,420. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 07th May 2026.
Cr.o - Criminal Origanal
CNR: RJSG180006102016
Filing Number
3125/2016
Filing Date
30-05-2016
Registration No
3176/2016
Registration Date
30-05-2016
Court
ACJM SADULSAHAR TALUKA
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
296
Police Station
Lalgarh Jathan Police Station,SGNR
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Jai Parkash (Phase-V) Advocate - Krishan Kumar Jalap
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 22-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 15-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 01-04-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Jai Parkash (3176/2016) The court acquitted the accused Jai Parkash of charges under IPC Sections 419, 420 (fraud) and Medical Council Act 1956 Section 15(2), finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the accused unlawfully practiced medicine or sold drugs without license—key witness testimony was contradictory, no FSL reports confirmed seized medicines were illegal, and the accused's Ayurvedic credentials were not verified or challenged. The court granted benefit of doubt and discharged him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Jai Parkash (3176/2016) The court acquitted the accused Jai Parkash of charges under IPC Sections 419, 420 (fraud) and Medical Council Act 1956 Section 15(2), finding insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the accused unlawfully practiced medicine or sold drugs without license—key witness testimony was contradictory, no FSL reports confirmed seized medicines were illegal, and the accused's Ayurvedic credentials were not verified or challenged. The court granted benefit of doubt and discharged him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts