State Government Inspector Of Police PEW Namakkal vs Selvam Advocate - Balakrishnan.P — 176/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 01st July 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNNM140005132025
e-Filing Number
08-06-2025
Filing Number
512/2025
Filing Date
16-Jul-2025
Registration No
176/2025
Registration Date
16-Jul-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam
Judge
28-Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
Decision Date
01-Jul-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
128
Police Station
PEW Namakkal P.S
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government Inspector Of Police PEW Namakkal
Adv. Inspector Of Police PEW Namakkal
Respondent(s)
-
1.Selvam Advocate - Balakrishnan.P
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Jul-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
CASE SUMMARY - CC 176/2025 Decision: The court acquitted the accused Selvam on July 1, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act sections 4(1)(C) and 4(1)(e). Key Facts: Police alleged that on April 20, 2025, the accused was caught illegally possessing 3 liters of alcohol for sale without government permission. After arrest, the accused allegedly gave a confession and authorities claimed to have seized alcohol and destroyed it. Reasoning: The court found critical evidentiary gaps: the plastic container allegedly used to store the alcohol was never produced in court; the accused's confession could not be used against him under Indian Evidence Act Section 23; no independent witnesses corroborated the seizure; and procedural irregularities undermined the investigation. The court ruled the state failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal under BNSS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Jul-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
25-Jun-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Jun-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
24-Jun-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
23-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
19-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
15-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
04-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
26-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
22-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
14-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
27-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
16-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
02-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
10-Mar-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
03-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Jan-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
02-Jan-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
15-Dec-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
05-Dec-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
05-Nov-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
10-Oct-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
18-Aug-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
16-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 176/2025
CASE SUMMARY - CC 176/2025 Decision: The court acquitted the accused Selvam on July 1, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act sections 4(1)(C) and 4(1)(e). Key Facts: Police alleged that on April 20, 2025, the accused was caught illegally possessing 3 liters of alcohol for sale without government permission. After arrest, the accused allegedly gave a confession and authorities claimed to have seized alcohol and destroyed it. Reasoning: The court found critical evidentiary gaps: the plastic container allegedly used to store the alcohol was never produced in court; the accused's confession could not be used against him under Indian Evidence Act Section 23; no independent witnesses corroborated the seizure; and procedural irregularities undermined the investigation. The court ruled the state failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal under BNSS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts