Forest Ranger, R.S.Mangalam vs G.Rajalingam — 243/2026

Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNRM020006992026

Filing Number

647/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

243/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram

Judge

6-Judicial Magistrate No I

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Forest Ranger, R.S.Mangalam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.G.Rajalingam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking return of a Vivo Y25 mobile phone seized as case property in a wildlife protection case. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish ownership rights with only a tax invoice copy and that the device is essential for ongoing forensic analysis in connection with the case involving amber gris (a substance protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  9. 09-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  10. 07-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  11. 06-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  12. 04-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  13. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 243/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking return of a Vivo Y25 mobile phone seized as case property in a wildlife protection case. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish ownership rights with only a tax invoice copy and that the device is essential for ongoing forensic analysis in connection with the case involving amber gris (a substance protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case