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

Case disposed

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

TN PROHIBITION ACT Section 4(1)(c)

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.

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

30-03-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Veppanthattai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case