State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL vs Anish Rajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan — 351/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380,457. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKK180054822022
Filing Number
5482/2022
Filing Date
21-07-2022
Registration No
351/2022
Registration Date
27-07-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
530
Police Station
ERAINEL P.S
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL
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
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 23-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 16-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all four accused persons in a theft case (C.C. No. 351/2022), finding that the prosecution failed to prove charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 457 and 380 beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while a theft incident was established through circumstantial evidence, the prosecution could not conclusively prove that the specific accused persons committed the crime, as the key witness testimony was contradictory and insufficient to establish individual culpability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all four accused persons in a theft case (C.C. No. 351/2022), finding that the prosecution failed to prove charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 457 and 380 beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while a theft incident was established through circumstantial evidence, the prosecution could not conclusively prove that the specific accused persons committed the crime, as the key witness testimony was contradictory and insufficient to establish individual culpability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts