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
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
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police Puluthipatty P.S
Adv. ALAGARSAMY.A
Respondent(s)
Ramasamy
Kumar (Juvenile)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts