STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs RAJKUMAR — 77/2024
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2)BNS. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV080036912024
Next Hearing
27th May 2026
e-Filing Number
16-10-2024
Filing Number
3646/2024
Filing Date
16-10-2024
Registration No
77/2024
Registration Date
21-10-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
FIR Details
FIR Number
221
Police Station
NANNILAM P.S.
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANNILAM PS
Respondent(s)
RAJKUMAR
SAMBATH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Service Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 29-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-04-2026 | Service Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary PW-2 (a 42-year-old truck driver) testified in Case CC. No. 77/2024 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam on July 23, 2025, regarding a battery theft from a tipper lorry. The witness claimed to have caught both accused red-handed stealing the battery and reported the matter to police, but during cross-examination by the prosecution, his credibility was questioned as he appeared to be providing false testimony in favor of the accused. No further cross-examination was conducted by the defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary PW-2 (a 42-year-old truck driver) testified in Case CC. No. 77/2024 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam on July 23, 2025, regarding a battery theft from a tipper lorry. The witness claimed to have caught both accused red-handed stealing the battery and reported the matter to police, but during cross-examination by the prosecution, his credibility was questioned as he appeared to be providing false testimony in favor of the accused. No further cross-examination was conducted by the defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts