State of West Bengal vs DIPAK MONDAL — 847/2025
Case under Bengal Excise Act Section 46A(c). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBPU060012482025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1243/2025
Filing Date
03-11-2025
Registration No
847/2025
Registration Date
03-11-2025
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia
Judge
4-JM I
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
34
Police Station
NETURIA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of West Bengal
Adv. APP In charge
Respondent(s)
DIPAK MONDAL
Hearing History
Judge: 4-JM I
Disposed
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
For appearance
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-02-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C | |
| 15-12-2025 | For appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Raghunathpur, Purulia acquitted Dipak Mandal of charges under Section 46A(c) of the Bengal Excise Act for illegal possession and sale of liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical evidentiary gaps: all prosecution witnesses (police personnel) admitted inability to identify seized articles, no independent local witnesses were examined, and crucially, the chemical examination report confirming the seized substance was liquor was not produced in court. Applying settled criminal law principles that suspicion cannot substitute proof and doubts must favor the accused, the court granted acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Raghunathpur, Purulia acquitted Dipak Mandal of charges under Section 46A(c) of the Bengal Excise Act for illegal possession and sale of liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical evidentiary gaps: all prosecution witnesses (police personnel) admitted inability to identify seized articles, no independent local witnesses were examined, and crucially, the chemical examination report confirming the seized substance was liquor was not produced in court. Applying settled criminal law principles that suspicion cannot substitute proof and doubts must favor the accused, the court granted acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts