State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police V.Kalathur PS vs Muthammal — 127/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(c). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNPB060006572025
e-Filing Number
29-07-2025
Filing Number
592/2025
Filing Date
30-07-2025
Registration No
127/2025
Registration Date
08-09-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Veppanthattai
Judge
11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
44
Police Station
POLICE STATION V. KALATHUR PERAMBALUR.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police V.Kalathur PS (Police Station)
Adv. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VKALATHURPS
Respondent(s)
Muthammal
Hearing History
Judge: 11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Disposed
Evidence
Questioning
Framing of Charges
Framing of Charges
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 26-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 24-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 18-03-2026 | Framing of Charges | |
| 17-03-2026 | Framing of Charges |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Muthammal under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that critical procedural deficiencies—including improper destruction of seized liquor bottles without following statutory requirements, absence of independent witness testimony, and the investigating officer being both the complainant and investigator (raising bias concerns)—fatally undermined the credibility of the evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Muthammal under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that critical procedural deficiencies—including improper destruction of seized liquor bottles without following statutory requirements, absence of independent witness testimony, and the investigating officer being both the complainant and investigator (raising bias concerns)—fatally undermined the credibility of the evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts