STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs VIDHYADHAR Advocate - MR RAJNESH MAHALA — 518/2021
Case under Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 Section 19/54. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 02nd April 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJSK100007762021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
776/2021
Filing Date
09-09-2021
Registration No
518/2021
Registration Date
09-09-2021
Court
ACJM FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
42
Police Station
EXCISE PROTECTION FORCE FATEHPUR THANA
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondent(s)
VIDHYADHAR Advocate - MR RAJNESH MAHALA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 19-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 17-02-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 03-02-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Fatehpur, Rajasthan acquitted Vidyadhar Singh of charges under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act for allegedly possessing 140 bottles of illegal liquor. The court found that while liquor was recovered from a field location, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the field belonged to the accused at the time of seizure, as no documentary evidence (revenue records or official verification) was produced to prove his ownership or possession of the location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Fatehpur, Rajasthan acquitted Vidyadhar Singh of charges under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act for allegedly possessing 140 bottles of illegal liquor. The court found that while liquor was recovered from a field location, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the field belonged to the accused at the time of seizure, as no documentary evidence (revenue records or official verification) was produced to prove his ownership or possession of the location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts