The State Government of Represent by Inspector of Police in Alangulam ps vs ESAKKIMUTHU — 3/2026
Case under Arms Act, 1959 Section 25(1)(a) ARMS ACT. Disposed: Uncontested--CLOSED on 05th March 2026.
CRLR - Criminal Revision Petition
CNR: TNTS010004402026
e-Filing Number
11-08-2025
Filing Number
342/2026
Filing Date
14-08-2025
Registration No
3/2026
Registration Date
23-01-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
05th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--CLOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Government of Represent by Inspector of Police in Alangulam ps (Police Station)
Adv. Inspector of police Alangulam police station
Respondent(s)
ESAKKIMUTHU
KARUTHAPANDI
Adv. Thiru.K.V.K.Appuranantham
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-02-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 07-02-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 23-01-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge set aside the committal order against Esakkimuthu and Karuthapandi, finding that the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to commit the case to Session Court. The court reasoned that the offences charged—weapon possession and threats under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act—are triable only by a First Class Magistrate, not exclusively by Session Courts, and thus committal was statutorily improper. The case was remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate for trial at the appropriate level. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge set aside the committal order against Esakkimuthu and Karuthapandi, finding that the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to commit the case to Session Court. The court reasoned that the offences charged—weapon possession and threats under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act—are triable only by a First Class Magistrate, not exclusively by Session Courts, and thus committal was statutorily improper. The case was remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate for trial at the appropriate level. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts