Sub Inspector Of Police, Natham PS vs Ashok — 54/2025

Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNDG100005852025

e-Filing Number

14-03-2025

Filing Number

565/2025

Filing Date

17-Mar-2025

Registration No

54/2025

Registration Date

21-Apr-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

499

Police Station

natham police station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sub Inspector Of Police, Natham PS (Police Station)

    Adv. Sub Inspector of Police NathamPS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ashok

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The DM cum JM Court in Nattam acquitted the accused under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, finding insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and intended to sell the seized alcohol bottles. The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish a clear nexus between the accused and the contraband, noting the absence of independent witnesses, proper chain of custody documentation, and corroborating evidence to support the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  10. 19-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  11. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  12. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  13. 22-Jan-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  14. 22-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  15. 19-Jan-2026

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  16. 30-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  17. 08-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  18. 18-Nov-2025

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  19. 04-Nov-2025

    Counter

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  20. 23-Oct-2025

    Counter

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  21. 07-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  22. 16-Sep-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  23. 16-Sep-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  24. 04-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  25. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  26. 23-Jul-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  27. 08-Jul-2025

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  28. 19-Jun-2025

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  29. 11-Jun-2025

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  30. 14-May-2025

    For further Proceedings

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  31. 21-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 17-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 54/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The DM cum JM Court in Nattam acquitted the accused under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, finding insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and intended to sell the seized alcohol bottles. The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish a clear nexus between the accused and the contraband, noting the absence of independent witnesses, proper chain of custody documentation, and corroborating evidence to support the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case