Thadicombu PS, Dgl vs Muthupandi — 538/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 21st April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNDG030044282018
Filing Number
538/2018
Filing Date
10-Oct-2018
Registration No
538/2018
Registration Date
11-Oct-2018
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate No II
Decision Date
21-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 17-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
162
Police Station
Thadicombu P.S.
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Thadicombu PS (Police Station), Dgl
Adv. Muthukumar APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Muthupandi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
21-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case 538/2018 Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate II, Dindigul acquitted accused Muthupandi under IPC Section 379 (theft) and Mines & Minerals Act Section 21(5), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite circumstantial evidence. Key Reasoning: Although witnesses testified that sand was seized from a tipper truck near the accused on 22.06.2017, critical gaps undermined the case: no eyewitnesses identified the accused at the crime scene, no confession statement was recorded, no public witnesses testified, seized materials lacked proper documentation, and contradictions existed between police witnesses regarding arrest procedures and evidence chain custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
21-Apr-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
30-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
23-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
17-Mar-2026
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Mar-2026
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
03-Mar-2026
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
24-Feb-2026
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
18-Feb-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
18-Feb-2026
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
17-Feb-2026
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Feb-2026
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Dec-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
25-Nov-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
11-Nov-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
04-Nov-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
14-Oct-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
07-Oct-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
07-Oct-2025
Part Heard
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
16-Sep-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
19-Aug-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
19-Aug-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Jul-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
01-Jul-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Jun-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
16-May-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
26-Mar-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Jan-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Dec-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
15-Nov-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
25-Oct-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
15-Oct-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
30-Jul-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
18-Jun-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
16-Apr-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
26-Mar-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
20-Feb-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Jan-2024
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
05-Dec-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
12-Sep-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
01-Aug-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
20-Jun-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
23-May-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
11-Apr-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
21-Feb-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
07-Feb-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
11-Jan-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
03-Jan-2023
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
15-Oct-2022
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
13-Oct-2022
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
18-Jul-2022
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
31-May-2022
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Mar-2022
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
22-Feb-2022
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
27-Dec-2021
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
08-Nov-2021
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
04-Oct-2021
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
07-Sep-2021
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
03-Aug-2021
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Jun-2021
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
25-May-2021
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
20-Apr-2021
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
06-Apr-2021
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
16-Feb-2021
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Dec-2020
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Nov-2020
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
20-Oct-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
08-Sep-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
04-Aug-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
07-Jul-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
02-Jun-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
19-May-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
24-Mar-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
18-Feb-2020
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
17-Dec-2019
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
22-Oct-2019
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
13-Aug-2019
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
25-Jun-2019
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
16-Apr-2019
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
12-Feb-2019
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
11-Dec-2018
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
27-Nov-2018
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
20-Nov-2018
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
13-Nov-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Oct-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 538/2018
Case 538/2018 Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate II, Dindigul acquitted accused Muthupandi under IPC Section 379 (theft) and Mines & Minerals Act Section 21(5), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite circumstantial evidence. Key Reasoning: Although witnesses testified that sand was seized from a tipper truck near the accused on 22.06.2017, critical gaps undermined the case: no eyewitnesses identified the accused at the crime scene, no confession statement was recorded, no public witnesses testified, seized materials lacked proper documentation, and contradictions existed between police witnesses regarding arrest procedures and evidence chain custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts