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

Case disposed

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

TN PROHIBITION ACT Section 4(1)(C) TODDY

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

23-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Trial

02-03-2026

Trial

17-02-2026

Questioning

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Bhavani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case