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.

Case disposed

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

Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sub Inspector of Police,PEW Police Station

    Adv. inspector of police pew tiruchengode

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RATHINASAMY Advocate - Nagarajan.K

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 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.

  3. 17-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  5. 08-Jun-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  6. 04-Jun-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  7. 01-Jun-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  8. 29-May-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  9. 26-May-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  10. 15-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  11. 13-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  12. 12-May-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  13. 12-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  14. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  15. 25-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  16. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  17. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  18. 09-Feb-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  19. 21-Jan-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  20. 30-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  21. 17-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  22. 10-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  23. 08-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  24. 29-Oct-2025

    Await Notice

    Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

  25. 25-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 08-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 369/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case