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

Case disposed

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

TN PROHIBITION ACT Section 4(1)(C )

Petitioner(s)

Sub Inspector Of Police Lalapettai Ps (Police Station)

Respondent(s)

Malar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Krishnarayapuram

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

17-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Krishnarayapuram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case