State vs Ajay Kumar — 610/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 272. Disposed: Contested--CONVICTED AND FINED on 21st May 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: UPRP010015952023

Case disposed

Filing Number

1505/2023

Filing Date

20-02-2023

Registration No

610/2023

Registration Date

20-02-2023

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Adj II

Decision Date

21st May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--CONVICTED AND FINED

FIR Details

FIR Number

211

Police Station

TANDA

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 272
U.P. EXCISE ACT, 1910 Section 60

Petitioner(s)

State

Adv. ADGC

Respondent(s)

Ajay Kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Adj II

21-05-2026

Disposed

12-05-2026

Prosecution Evidence

30-04-2026

Prosecution Evidence

15-04-2026

Prosecution Evidence

01-04-2026

Prosecution Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

21-05-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: State v. Ajay Kumar (610/2023) The court convicted Ajay Kumar under Section 60(1) of the Excise Act for possessing 25 liters of illicit liquor mixed with urea, which police recovered on April 25, 2022, near Davadyal in Rampur district. However, the court acquitted him under IPC Section 272 (adulteration), finding insufficient evidence that the alcohol was being sold to others. The defendant's voluntary confession and time already served in custody were considered mitigating factors. Sentence: Imprisonment already undergone plus ₹500 fine (3 days additional imprisonment if fine unpaid). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Ajay Kumar (610/2023) The court convicted Ajay Kumar under Section 60(1) of the Excise Act for possessing 25 liters of illicit liquor mixed with urea, which police recovered on April 25, 2022, near Davadyal in Rampur district. However, the court acquitted him under IPC Section 272 (adulteration), finding insufficient evidence that the alcohol was being sold to others. The defendant's voluntary confession and time already served in custody were considered mitigating factors. Sentence: Imprisonment already undergone plus ₹500 fine (3 days additional imprisonment if fine unpaid). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case