Sub Inspector of Police,PEW Police Station vs RATHINASAMY Advocate - Nagarajan.K — 369/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th June 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNNM080005522025
e-Filing Number
28-03-2025
Filing Number
547/2025
Filing Date
08-Apr-2025
Registration No
369/2025
Registration Date
25-Sep-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruchengode
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
Decision Date
17-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
543
Police Station
PEW Triuchengode P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sub Inspector of Police,PEW Police Station
Adv. inspector of police pew tiruchengode
Respondent(s)
-
1.RATHINASAMY Advocate - Nagarajan.K
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Jun-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: 369/2025 Court Decision: The accused Rathinasamy was acquitted of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024 and discharged from the case under Section 271(1) BNSS. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Critical evidentiary gaps included: contradictory witness testimonies among police witnesses, absence of any seized liquor bottle presented in court, no photographs or video documentation of the alleged contraband, no civilian witnesses despite the alleged incident occurring in a public location, and inconsistencies regarding how the evidence was handled. The court noted the investigating officer also served as the complainant, and serious doubts arose about whether the incident actually occurred as described. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Jun-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
12-Jun-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
08-Jun-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
04-Jun-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
01-Jun-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
29-May-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
26-May-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
15-May-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
13-May-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
12-May-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-May-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
15-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
25-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
02-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
18-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
09-Feb-2026
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
21-Jan-2026
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
30-Dec-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
17-Dec-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
10-Dec-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
08-Dec-2025
For further Proceedings
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
29-Oct-2025
Await Notice
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode
-
25-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 369/2025
Case Summary: 369/2025 Court Decision: The accused Rathinasamy was acquitted of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024 and discharged from the case under Section 271(1) BNSS. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Critical evidentiary gaps included: contradictory witness testimonies among police witnesses, absence of any seized liquor bottle presented in court, no photographs or video documentation of the alleged contraband, no civilian witnesses despite the alleged incident occurring in a public location, and inconsistencies regarding how the evidence was handled. The court noted the investigating officer also served as the complainant, and serious doubts arose about whether the incident actually occurred as described. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts