State of West Bengal vs BISWANATH KUNDU — 1/2019
Case under Railways Act Section 143. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th March 2026.
Rly. NGR
CNR: WBPU060000812019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
81/2019
Filing Date
30-01-2019
Registration No
1/2019
Registration Date
30-01-2019
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia
Judge
4-JM I
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of West Bengal
Adv. TANMOY PAUL
Respondent(s)
BISWANATH KUNDU
Hearing History
Judge: 4-JM I
Disposed
E.R of W.W and Evidence
E.R of W.W and Evidence
E.R of W.W and Evidence
E.R of W.W and Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 19-01-2026 | E.R of W.W and Evidence | |
| 15-12-2025 | E.R of W.W and Evidence | |
| 12-11-2025 | E.R of W.W and Evidence | |
| 09-10-2025 | E.R of W.W and Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts