Inspector of Police, Ulagampatti P.S vs BHARATHI RAJA — 76/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNSV010038912024

Filing Number

3217/2024

Filing Date

06-Oct-2022

Registration No

76/2024

Registration Date

20-Nov-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 10-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

06

Police Station

Ulagampatti Police Station

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 379
Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 Section 21(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police, Ulagampatti P.S

    Adv. ALAGARSAMY.A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHARATHI RAJA

  2. 2.Vinothkumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The court acquitted the two accused of charges under Section 379 IPC read with Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, finding insufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged theft of copper ore. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses lacked credibility, their statements were inconsistent, and crucial evidence regarding the chain of custody and location of the stolen mineral was not properly established, making it impossible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  10. 10-Feb-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  12. 27-Jan-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  13. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  14. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  15. 08-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  16. 12-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  17. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  18. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  19. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  20. 05-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  21. 02-Jul-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  22. 23-Apr-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  23. 26-Feb-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  24. 17-Jan-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  25. 20-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 06-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 76/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the two accused of charges under Section 379 IPC read with Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, finding insufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged theft of copper ore. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses lacked credibility, their statements were inconsistent, and crucial evidence regarding the chain of custody and location of the stolen mineral was not properly established, making it impossible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case