P.K.Ramasamy The Sub-Inspector of Police vs Subramaniam — 229/2019
Case under Handlooms [ Reservation of Articles for Production ] Act, 1985 Section 5,10. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th June 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNCB180003222019
Filing Number
295/2019
Filing Date
02-04-2019
Registration No
229/2019
Registration Date
11-04-2019
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur
Judge
31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Decision Date
09th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.K.Ramasamy The Sub-Inspector of Police
Adv. app
Respondent(s)
Subramaniam
Hearing History
Judge: 31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Questioning
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-06-2026 | Judgement |
| 05-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-06-2026 | Questioning |
| 01-06-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: Case 229/2019 - P.K. Ramasamy v. Subramaniam The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Subramaniam of charges under Sections 5 and 10 of the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while enforcement officials testified to observing the manufacture of reserved cotton sarees on powerlooms, the absence of a mandatory laboratory report examining the seized fabric samples was fatal to the prosecution's case, as modern powerlooms can visually replicate handloom characteristics requiring scientific verification. Additionally, the only independent witness (PW-4) turned hostile, and the enforcement officer admitted withholding an analyst report she had obtained, triggering an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: Case 229/2019 - P.K. Ramasamy v. Subramaniam The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Subramaniam of charges under Sections 5 and 10 of the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while enforcement officials testified to observing the manufacture of reserved cotton sarees on powerlooms, the absence of a mandatory laboratory report examining the seized fabric samples was fatal to the prosecution's case, as modern powerlooms can visually replicate handloom characteristics requiring scientific verification. Additionally, the only independent witness (PW-4) turned hostile, and the enforcement officer admitted withholding an analyst report she had obtained, triggering an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts