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.

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNTJ010042282025

Case disposed

Filing Number

3174/2025

Filing Date

28-04-2025

Registration No

193/2025

Registration Date

28-04-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Thanjavur

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

244

Police Station

Thiruvaiyaru Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 294(b), 506(ii)
ARMS ACT, 1959 Section 25(1-A)

Petitioner(s)

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

Respondent(s)

Thulasi Alais Thulasiraman Advocate - J.Manikandan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

08-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Judgement

16-03-2026

Judgement

11-03-2026

Arguments

06-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

Interim Orders

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Thanjavur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case