State of West Bengal vs BISWANATH KUNDU — 1/2019

Case under Railways Act Section 143. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

Rly. NGR

CNR: WBPU060000812019

Filing Number

81/2019

Filing Date

30-Jan-2019

Registration No

1/2019

Registration Date

30-Jan-2019

Court

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia

Judge

4-Jm I

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 10-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Railways Act Section 143

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of West Bengal

    Adv. TANMOY PAUL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BISWANATH KUNDU

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Daliy OrderView PDF

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Biswanath Kundu of charges under Section 143 of the Railway Act, 1989 for allegedly conducting unauthorized railway ticket booking business. The court found critical deficiencies in the prosecution's case: failure to prove the accused lacked lawful authority, lack of reliable independent witnesses (the sole local witness was the accused's brother), procedural flaws in the seizure process, and inability to establish commercial activity as a business. Applying the principle that reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the court ruled the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm I

  5. 19-Jan-2026

    Daliy OrderView PDF

  6. 19-Jan-2026

    E.R of W.W and Evidence

    Jm I

  7. 15-Dec-2025

    E.R of W.W and Evidence

    Jm I

  8. 12-Nov-2025

    E.R of W.W and Evidence

    Jm I

  9. 09-Oct-2025

    E.R of W.W and Evidence

    Jm I

  10. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Jm I

  11. 17-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Jm I

  12. 09-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Jm I

  13. 21-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Jm I

  14. 07-Jan-2025

    Daliy OrderView PDF

  15. 07-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Jm I

  16. 13-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Jm I

  17. 20-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Jm I

  18. 06-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Jm I

  19. 13-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Jm I

  20. 19-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Jm I

  21. 03-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Jm I

  22. 23-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    Jm I

  23. 12-Apr-2023

    Daliy OrderView PDF

  24. 12-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    Jm I

  25. 17-Feb-2023

    Daliy OrderView PDF

  26. 17-Feb-2023

    Evidence

    Jm I

  27. 13-Dec-2022

    Evidence

    Jm I

  28. 30-Sep-2022

    Evidence

    Jm I

  29. 30-Aug-2022

    Evidence

    Jm I

  30. 28-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Jm I

  31. 13-May-2022

    Evidence

    Jm I

  32. 17-Mar-2022

    Evidence

    Jm I

  33. 24-Jan-2022

    Evidence

    Jm I

  34. 04-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Jm I

  35. 20-Sep-2021

    Evidence

    Jm I

  36. 19-Jul-2021

    Evidence

    Jm I

  37. 26-May-2021

    Evidence

    Jm I

  38. 05-May-2021

    Evidence

    Jm I

  39. 06-Apr-2021

    Evidence

    Jm I

  40. 06-Jan-2021

    Evidence

    Jm I

  41. 21-Oct-2020

    Evidence

  42. 07-May-2020

    Evidence

    Jm I

  43. 16-Mar-2020

    Evidence

    Jm I

  44. 21-Jan-2020

    Evidence

    Jm I

  45. 03-Jan-2020

    Hearing

    Jm I

  46. 18-Dec-2019

    Hearing

    Jm I

  47. 11-Nov-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  48. 23-Sep-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  49. 28-Aug-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  50. 29-Jul-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  51. 25-Jun-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  52. 23-May-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  53. 28-Mar-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  54. 22-Feb-2019

    Evidence

    Jm I

  55. 30-Jan-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  56. 30-Jan-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Biswanath Kundu of charges under Section 143 of the Railway Act, 1989 for allegedly conducting unauthorized railway ticket booking business. The court found critical deficiencies in the prosecution's case: failure to prove the accused lacked lawful authority, lack of reliable independent witnesses (the sole local witness was the accused's brother), procedural flaws in the seizure process, and inability to establish commercial activity as a business. Applying the principle that reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the court ruled the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case