State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Kai Kalathur PS vs AABRAHAM — 53/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 12th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNPB060011952024
Next Hearing
12th March 2026
e-Filing Number
28-12-2024
Filing Number
1071/2024
Filing Date
31-12-2024
Registration No
53/2024
Registration Date
31-12-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Veppanthattai
Judge
11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Kai Kalathur PS (Police Station)
Adv. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAIKALATHUR PS
Respondent(s)
AABRAHAM
THANGAPANDIYAN
Hearing History
Judge: 11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 29-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No: CC.53/2024 | Court: District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Veppanthattai Witness Rajkumar (age 26) was examined as a prosecution witness in a sand theft case on 30.10.2025 under Chapter XXIII CrPC. The witness testified regarding a document (memo) seized by police during investigation but provided limited details; during cross-examination, he stated he did not recall what was written in the document and had no memory of the relevant facts. The deposition was recorded and admitted as correct by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No: CC.53/2024 | Court: District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Veppanthattai Witness Rajkumar (age 26) was examined as a prosecution witness in a sand theft case on 30.10.2025 under Chapter XXIII CrPC. The witness testified regarding a document (memo) seized by police during investigation but provided limited details; during cross-examination, he stated he did not recall what was written in the document and had no memory of the relevant facts. The deposition was recorded and admitted as correct by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts