State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station vs Thulasi Alais Thulasiraman Advocate - J.Manikandan — 193/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNTJ010042282025

Filing Number

3174/2025

Filing Date

28-Apr-2025

Registration No

193/2025

Registration Date

28-Apr-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Thanjavur

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

244

Police Station

Thiruvaiyaru Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 506(ii)
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25(1-A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Thulasi Alais Thulasiraman Advocate - J.Manikandan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge of Thanjavur acquitted accused Thulasi of all charges under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical deficiencies: the seizure mahazar lacked the accused's signature and was prepared before case registration, no independent witnesses were examined despite their presence at the scene, and the prosecution failed to produce government notification establishing the sword as a prohibited weapon. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  9. 23-Feb-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  10. 23-Feb-2026

    For 313(1)(b) of Crpc questioning

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  11. 13-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  12. 04-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  13. 29-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  14. 08-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  15. 10-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  16. 03-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  17. 26-Nov-2025

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  18. 26-Nov-2025

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  19. 26-Nov-2025

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  20. 26-Nov-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  21. 25-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  22. 19-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  23. 10-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  24. 29-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  25. 10-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  26. 09-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  27. 12-Aug-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  28. 29-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  29. 04-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  30. 03-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  31. 28-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 28-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 193/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge of Thanjavur acquitted accused Thulasi of all charges under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical deficiencies: the seizure mahazar lacked the accused's signature and was prepared before case registration, no independent witnesses were examined despite their presence at the scene, and the prosecution failed to produce government notification establishing the sword as a prohibited weapon. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case