State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police vs MURUGESAN — 441/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNED140020942025
e-Filing Number
08-11-2025
Filing Number
2094/2025
Filing Date
10-11-2025
Registration No
441/2025
Registration Date
12-11-2025
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
262
Police Station
Ammapettai Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police
Adv. Inspector of Police AMMAPETTAI POLICE STATION
Respondent(s)
MURUGESAN
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate No.1
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 07-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 04-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court (Bhavani) acquitted the defendant Murugesan of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act for possessing 10 bottles of Veeran Brandy, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural violations, including the seizure memo lacking civilian witness signatures, absence of proper sampling procedures as mandated by Section 32 of the TN Prohibition Act 1937, and lack of corroborating civilian testimony, warranting the defendant's acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court (Bhavani) acquitted the defendant Murugesan of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act for possessing 10 bottles of Veeran Brandy, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural violations, including the seizure memo lacking civilian witness signatures, absence of proper sampling procedures as mandated by Section 32 of the TN Prohibition Act 1937, and lack of corroborating civilian testimony, warranting the defendant's acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts