Sub Inspector Of Police Lalapettai Ps vs Malar — 436/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C ). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKR110011392025
e-Filing Number
26-06-2025
Filing Number
1049/2025
Filing Date
30-06-2025
Registration No
436/2025
Registration Date
17-07-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Krishnarayapuram
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Krishnarayapuram
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
155
Police Station
Lallapettai P.S
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police Lalapettai Ps (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Malar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Krishnarayapuram
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Framing of Charges
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 23-02-2026 | Questioning | |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 13-01-2026 | Framing of Charges |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Judgment The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court in Krishnarayapuram, presided over by Judge R. Bagyaraj, acquitted the accused Malar in a case involving alleged possession of 28 bottles of Black Pearl Brandy for sale without government authorization under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act. The court found that while the prosecution presented evidence through three witnesses and documentary records, the charge against the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to inconsistencies regarding seizure procedures and evidence custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Judgment The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court in Krishnarayapuram, presided over by Judge R. Bagyaraj, acquitted the accused Malar in a case involving alleged possession of 28 bottles of Black Pearl Brandy for sale without government authorization under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act. The court found that while the prosecution presented evidence through three witnesses and documentary records, the charge against the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to inconsistencies regarding seizure procedures and evidence custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts