Dindgiul Town north Police Station, Dindigul vs Rajapandiyan and another — 360/2021
Case under The Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 77. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNDG030073492021
Filing Number
7067/2021
Filing Date
13-05-2021
Registration No
360/2021
Registration Date
13-05-2021
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate No II
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
750
Police Station
Dindigul Town North P.S
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dindgiul Town north Police Station, Dindigul
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Rajapandiyan and another
Senthilkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate No II
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 02-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 23-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Judgment Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Dindigul acquitted two accused persons (Rajapandian and Senthilkumar) charged under Sections 6(a) r/w 24(1) COTPA Act and Section 77 Juvenile Justice Act 2015 for allegedly selling tobacco products to minors. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused specifically sold these items to children, as no minor victims were produced as witnesses, and the evidence regarding sale to minors was insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Judgment Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Dindigul acquitted two accused persons (Rajapandian and Senthilkumar) charged under Sections 6(a) r/w 24(1) COTPA Act and Section 77 Juvenile Justice Act 2015 for allegedly selling tobacco products to minors. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused specifically sold these items to children, as no minor victims were produced as witnesses, and the evidence regarding sale to minors was insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts