State Government Inspector Of Police PEW Namakkal vs Radharavi Advocate - Akilan.A — 310/2025

Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNNM140010622025

e-Filing Number

08-06-2025

Filing Number

1061/2025

Filing Date

08-Sep-2025

Registration No

310/2025

Registration Date

10-Oct-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam

Judge

28-Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

Decision Date

30-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

151

Police Station

PEW Namakkal P.S

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government Inspector Of Police PEW Namakkal

    Adv. Additional Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Radharavi Advocate - Akilan.A

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Jun-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: 310/2025 Court: Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam Date: 30 June 2026 Accused: Radharavi (alleged liquor smuggler) Decision The court acquitted the accused under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (TNP Act) Sections 4(1)(C) r/w 4(1)(a). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was illegally selling state-licensed liquor at inflated prices. Key Findings The court identified critical evidentiary gaps: the confiscated liquor bottles were never chemically analyzed to confirm alcohol content, chemical samples were not sent for testing, and no buyers of the allegedly smuggled liquor testified. The confession given in police custody cannot be used against the accused per BNSS Section 23(2). The court found the prosecution case riddled with doubt regarding whether the bottles actually contained liquor and insufficient proof of illegal sale activities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  4. 25-Jun-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  5. 23-Jun-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  6. 19-Jun-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  7. 17-Jun-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  8. 15-Jun-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  9. 12-Jun-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  10. 12-Jun-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  11. 12-Jun-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  12. 29-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  13. 26-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  14. 15-May-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 15-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  16. 13-May-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  17. 07-May-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  18. 02-Apr-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  19. 10-Mar-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  20. 03-Feb-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  21. 09-Jan-2026

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  22. 24-Dec-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  23. 26-Nov-2025

    Service Pending

    Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam

  24. 10-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 08-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 310/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 310/2025 Court: Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam Date: 30 June 2026 Accused: Radharavi (alleged liquor smuggler) Decision The court acquitted the accused under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (TNP Act) Sections 4(1)(C) r/w 4(1)(a). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was illegally selling state-licensed liquor at inflated prices. Key Findings The court identified critical evidentiary gaps: the confiscated liquor bottles were never chemically analyzed to confirm alcohol content, chemical samples were not sent for testing, and no buyers of the allegedly smuggled liquor testified. The confession given in police custody cannot be used against the accused per BNSS Section 23(2). The court found the prosecution case riddled with doubt regarding whether the bottles actually contained liquor and insufficient proof of illegal sale activities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case