Inspector of Police Puluthipatty P.S vs Ramasamy — 95/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

SPL.SC - Special Sessions Case

CNR: TNSV010045352024

Filing Number

3734/2024

Filing Date

20-Dec-2024

Registration No

95/2024

Registration Date

20-Dec-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 10-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

95

Police Station

Pulithipatti Police Station

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police Puluthipatty P.S

    Adv. ALAGARSAMY.A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramasamy

  2. 2.Kumar (Juvenile)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Special Criminal Court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379 IPC, finding insufficient evidence to establish that unauthorized mineral mining occurred without government approval. The court noted critical gaps in witness testimony, lack of identification of the actual perpetrators, absence of proper documentation regarding the location and quantity of minerals allegedly extracted, and contradictions in the government's evidence, leading to the acquittal and discharge of the accused under Section 235(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  4. 17-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. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  8. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  9. 07-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  10. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  11. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  12. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  13. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  14. 08-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  15. 17-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  16. 04-Nov-2025

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  17. 04-Nov-2025

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  18. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  19. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  20. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  21. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  22. 21-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  23. 15-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  24. 08-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  25. 01-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  26. 25-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  27. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  28. 17-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  29. 22-Apr-2025

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  30. 22-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  31. 17-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  32. 20-Dec-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 20-Dec-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 95/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Special Criminal Court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379 IPC, finding insufficient evidence to establish that unauthorized mineral mining occurred without government approval. The court noted critical gaps in witness testimony, lack of identification of the actual perpetrators, absence of proper documentation regarding the location and quantity of minerals allegedly extracted, and contradictions in the government's evidence, leading to the acquittal and discharge of the accused under Section 235(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case