State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,MANAVALAKURICHY vs Anish Rajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan — 209/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380,454. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKK180038412022
Filing Number
3841/2022
Filing Date
09-06-2022
Registration No
209/2022
Registration Date
09-06-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
135
Police Station
MANAVALAKURICHY P.S
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,MANAVALAKURICHY
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Anish Rajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan
Jothi (Karthick)
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Siva
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Karthick(Chinnakarthick)
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 09-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 03-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all four accused persons of theft charges (IPC Sections 457 and 380) in a case involving alleged theft of temple items and cash on August 6, 2021. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because a key witness gave contradictory testimony, and the confessional statement lacked proper corroboration with independent evidence as required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Court Decision The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all four accused persons of theft charges (IPC Sections 457 and 380) in a case involving alleged theft of temple items and cash on August 6, 2021. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because a key witness gave contradictory testimony, and the confessional statement lacked proper corroboration with independent evidence as required under Section 27 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