State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police vs PONNUSAMY Advocate - A.Baskaran — 8/2026
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C) TODDY. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNED140011182025
e-Filing Number
01-09-2025
Filing Number
1118/2025
Filing Date
02-09-2025
Registration No
8/2026
Registration Date
12-01-2026
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Bhavani
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate No.1
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
109
Police Station
Ammapettai Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police
Adv. Inspector of Police AMMAPETTAI POLICE STATION
Respondent(s)
PONNUSAMY Advocate - A.Baskaran
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate No.1
Disposed
Judgement
Trial
Trial
Questioning
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 02-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 17-02-2026 | Questioning |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Bhavani acquitted the accused, Ponnusamy (69), of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act (Toddy), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that critical procedural violations—including the absence of a proper prohibition officer or senior police inspector during seizure and destruction of alleged contraband liquor, lack of independent public witnesses, and failure to maintain proper documentation—created sufficient doubt regarding the authenticity and legality of the evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Bhavani acquitted the accused, Ponnusamy (69), of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act (Toddy), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that critical procedural violations—including the absence of a proper prohibition officer or senior police inspector during seizure and destruction of alleged contraband liquor, lack of independent public witnesses, and failure to maintain proper documentation—created sufficient doubt regarding the authenticity and legality of the evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts