SI OF POLICE GRP JOLARPET vs MEGANATHAN Advocate - SARAVANAPERUMAL B — 700027/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTU020005942018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
700229/2018
Filing Date
07-04-2018
Registration No
700027/2018
Registration Date
07-04-2018
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thirupathur
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI OF POLICE GRP JOLARPET
Adv. ASST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Respondent(s)
MEGANATHAN Advocate - SARAVANAPERUMAL B
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thirupathur
Disposed
Part Heard
Evidence
Questioning
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 03-03-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 24-02-2026 | Questioning | |
| 18-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate III court acquitted Meganathan of theft charges (IPC §379) for allegedly stealing a mobile phone from a train passenger. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory witness testimony—particularly witnesses to the alleged confession statement and property recovery could not identify the accused in court, creating fatal doubts about whether the recovered mobile was actually seized from him. The stolen mobile was returned to its owner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate III court acquitted Meganathan of theft charges (IPC §379) for allegedly stealing a mobile phone from a train passenger. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory witness testimony—particularly witnesses to the alleged confession statement and property recovery could not identify the accused in court, creating fatal doubts about whether the recovered mobile was actually seized from him. The stolen mobile was returned to its owner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts