State Government Inspector Of Police PEW Namakkal vs Arumugam Advocate - Balakrishnan.P — 192/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 01st July 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNNM140007762025
e-Filing Number
06-06-2025
Filing Number
775/2025
Filing Date
09-Aug-2025
Registration No
192/2025
Registration Date
11-Aug-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
110
Police Station
PEW Namakkal P.S
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government Inspector Of Police PEW Namakkal
Adv. Additional Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
-
1.Arumugam Advocate - Balakrishnan.P
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Jul-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: CC 192/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Arumugam of charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C), finding the state failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court granted benefit of doubt and discharged the accused under BNSS Section 271(1). Key Reasoning: Although prosecution witnesses testified that accused illegally possessed and intended to sell 2 liters of liquor seized on April 7, 2025, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case. The confessional statement allegedly given to police cannot be used against the accused under Indian Evidence Act Section 23(1). The actual 5-liter container allegedly seized was never produced in court, and the confiscation memo lacked proper corroboration. The court found procedural irregularities in evidence collection and insufficient documentary proof establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 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
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
10-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
29-Jan-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
29-Jan-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
16-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
03-Nov-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
26-Sep-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
11-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 192/2025
Case Summary: CC 192/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Arumugam of charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C), finding the state failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court granted benefit of doubt and discharged the accused under BNSS Section 271(1). Key Reasoning: Although prosecution witnesses testified that accused illegally possessed and intended to sell 2 liters of liquor seized on April 7, 2025, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case. The confessional statement allegedly given to police cannot be used against the accused under Indian Evidence Act Section 23(1). The actual 5-liter container allegedly seized was never produced in court, and the confiscation memo lacked proper corroboration. The court found procedural irregularities in evidence collection and insufficient documentary proof establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts