STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs BHARATJEE PRASAD — 3421/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 4250,406. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBHW040065432025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
6543/2025
Filing Date
15-12-2025
Registration No
3421/2025
Registration Date
15-12-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
213
Police Station
BANTRA
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Respondent(s)
BHARATJEE PRASAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-02-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C | |
| 16-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 15-12-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah acquitted accused Bharatjee Prasad of charges under IPC sections 406/420 (criminal breach of trust and cheating) related to non-payment of ₹10,000 motor rental. The court found the prosecution case suffered from material lacunae: the de facto complainant (sole witness) provided no incriminating evidence, testimony contradicted the FIR, no corroborating documents were presented, and other witnesses listed in the charge sheet were not examined. Applying the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court concluded insufficient evidence existed to establish the offense and acquitted the accused under section 248(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah acquitted accused Bharatjee Prasad of charges under IPC sections 406/420 (criminal breach of trust and cheating) related to non-payment of ₹10,000 motor rental. The court found the prosecution case suffered from material lacunae: the de facto complainant (sole witness) provided no incriminating evidence, testimony contradicted the FIR, no corroborating documents were presented, and other witnesses listed in the charge sheet were not examined. Applying the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court concluded insufficient evidence existed to establish the offense and acquitted the accused under section 248(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts