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

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

SPL.SC - Special Sessions Case

CNR: TNSV010045352024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3734/2024

Filing Date

20-12-2024

Registration No

95/2024

Registration Date

20-12-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

95

Police Station

Pulithipatti Police Station

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 379
MINES & MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) Act, 1957 Section 21(4)

Petitioner(s)

Inspector of Police Puluthipatty P.S

Adv. ALAGARSAMY.A

Respondent(s)

Ramasamy

Kumar (Juvenile)

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI

23-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Questioning

18-02-2026

Evidence

11-02-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

Interim Orders

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case