INS. of Police RPS Gummidipoondi Cr.No 8.2020 (Split Up from 149/ vs Selvaraj — 54/2023
Case under Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 Section 3(a). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTR360006992023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
54/2023
Filing Date
02-02-2021
Registration No
54/2023
Registration Date
02-02-2021
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Gummidipoondi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INS. of Police RPS Gummidipoondi Cr.No 8.2020 (Split Up from 149/
Respondent(s)
Selvaraj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Gummidipoondi
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 14-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 17-10-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
The court examined the testimony of witness ASA.1 (a Senior Section Engineer) under Section 54(9) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969, and found significant deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding an alleged railway theft case (C.C. 54/2023). The cross-examination revealed multiple gaps in the police investigation, including missing details about stolen goods' value, railway markings, weight specifications, and incomplete documentation of seized items. The case appears to be still pending with the court noting evidentiary weaknesses that undermine the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court examined the testimony of witness ASA.1 (a Senior Section Engineer) under Section 54(9) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969, and found significant deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding an alleged railway theft case (C.C. 54/2023). The cross-examination revealed multiple gaps in the police investigation, including missing details about stolen goods' value, railway markings, weight specifications, and incomplete documentation of seized items. The case appears to be still pending with the court noting evidentiary weaknesses that undermine the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts