Sub Inspector of Police, Sikkal P.S vs ramesh — 41/2025
Case under Mp/1/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section rameshSub Inspector of Police, Sikkal P.S. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 06th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNRM100007182025
e-Filing Number
19-02-2025
Filing Number
714/2025
Filing Date
19-02-2025
Registration No
41/2025
Registration Date
20-02-2025
Court
District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi
Judge
100-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector of Police, Sikkal P.S
Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Sikkal PS
Respondent(s)
ramesh
Hearing History
Judge: 100-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 26-02-2026 | Questioning |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Munsif court in Kadaladi acquitted the accused Ramesh in a case involving alleged illegal possession of 44 bottles of government-manufactured brandy (180 ML each) under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to absence of independent public witnesses, lack of chemical analysis of the seized liquor, and inconsistencies in police testimony, thereby applying the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused and ordering his release under Section 271(1) BNS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Munsif court in Kadaladi acquitted the accused Ramesh in a case involving alleged illegal possession of 44 bottles of government-manufactured brandy (180 ML each) under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to absence of independent public witnesses, lack of chemical analysis of the seized liquor, and inconsistencies in police testimony, thereby applying the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused and ordering his release under Section 271(1) BNS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts