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.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNSV010038912024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
3217/2024
Filing Date
06-10-2022
Registration No
76/2024
Registration Date
20-11-2024
Court
District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
06
Police Station
Ulagampatti Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, Ulagampatti P.S
Adv. ALAGARSAMY.A
Respondent(s)
BHARATHI RAJA
Vinothkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 04-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts