si of police sankari ps vs AJAY — 410/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 29th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNSA090023282025
e-Filing Number
22-11-2025
Filing Number
2327/2025
Filing Date
24-11-2025
Registration No
410/2025
Registration Date
26-11-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankari
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate - I, Sankari
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
433
Police Station
Sankari P.S
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
si of police sankari ps (Police Station)
Adv. si of Police sankari
Respondent(s)
AJAY
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate - I, Sankari
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 28-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 27-04-2026 | Questioning | |
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Ajay of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for alleged illegal liquor possession and sale. The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to: absence of independent witnesses at the public seizure location, non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements (no samples drawn, no chemical analysis), lack of evidence proving possession was for sale rather than personal consumption, and reliance solely on police officer testimony without corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Ajay of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for alleged illegal liquor possession and sale. The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to: absence of independent witnesses at the public seizure location, non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements (no samples drawn, no chemical analysis), lack of evidence proving possession was for sale rather than personal consumption, and reliance solely on police officer testimony without corroboration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts