CW-2019-0006Virudhunagar, Tamil NaduJudgment 8 July 2019

Sivakasi Man v. State & Ors.

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. replace ' ' — paras 4.2-4.7 record the respondents' counter (credible-information search with DSP permission, accused untraceable, case closed as 'action dropped', liability not absolved); summarize it per R52. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 8 July 2019 in W.P.(MD) No. 9014 of 2010, the Madras High Court (Coram: B. Pugalendhi, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: M. Ramasamy (Inspector); Sub-Inspector, Sivakasi Town PS, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).

Register number
TN 63 CW 0008
Case reference
W.P.(MD) No. 9014 of 2010
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: B. Pugalendhi, J.), 8 July 2019
Officer(s) at the material time
M. Ramasamy (Inspector); Sub-Inspector, Sivakasi Town PS
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 8(c)/20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 51(1) of the Wildlife Protection Act
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Therefore, it is clear that in order to victimize the petitioner, the 4th respondent has foisted a case against him and the findings given by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, establish that the 4th respondent has committed a serious professional …” (at para 11)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Madras High Court judgment dated 8 July 2019 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Therefore, it is clear that in order to victimize the petitioner, the 4th respondent has foisted a case against him and the findings given by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, establish that the 4th respondent has committed a serious professional …” (para 11)

Institutional response

1
8 Jul 2019

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: W.P.(MD) No. 9014 of 2010
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.