The Inspector of Police, Forest Range, Sirkali vs Jayaseelan Advocate - S. Nithine Babu — 700100/2023
Case under Indian Wildlife (protection) Act, 1972 Section 16(a),39(1),(2),(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNMY020046392023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
701665/2023
Filing Date
09-08-2023
Registration No
700100/2023
Registration Date
09-08-2023
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayiladuthurai
Judge
6-Judicial Magistrate No.1
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
01
Police Station
Forest Office, Nagapattinam
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Inspector of Police, Forest Range, Sirkali
Adv. Tmt P.MALATHI, B.Sc.,B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Jayaseelan Advocate - S. Nithine Babu
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Judicial Magistrate No.1
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Part Heard
Judgement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 13-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 10-03-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 03-03-2026 | Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Magistrate Court in Mayiladuthurai acquitted the accused (Jeyaseelan, age 35) of charges under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. While government witnesses testified that three peafowls died after consuming pesticide-laced rice placed in the accused's field to kill rodents, the court found critical gaps in evidence, including lack of eyewitnesses, inconsistencies in seizure procedures, and failure to establish the accused's intent to kill protected wildlife rather than control pests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary The Magistrate Court in Mayiladuthurai acquitted the accused (Jeyaseelan, age 35) of charges under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. While government witnesses testified that three peafowls died after consuming pesticide-laced rice placed in the accused's field to kill rodents, the court found critical gaps in evidence, including lack of eyewitnesses, inconsistencies in seizure procedures, and failure to establish the accused's intent to kill protected wildlife rather than control pests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts