SI OF POLICE, DVK TALUK PS. MPC.03/2025 vs Arjunan — 49/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 185,181. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNSV070002532025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

30-01-2025

Filing Number

252/2025

Filing Date

30-01-2025

Registration No

49/2025

Registration Date

30-01-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Devakkottai

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

3

Police Station

Devakottai Taluk Police Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 185,181
MP/1/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section ArjunanSI OF POLICE, DVK TALUK PS. MPC.03/2025
MP/2/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section ArjunanSI OF POLICE, DVK TALUK PS. MPC.03/2025

Petitioner(s)

SI OF POLICE, DVK TALUK PS (Police Station). MPC.03/2025

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Arjunan

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate

23-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Arguments

04-03-2026

Appearance

25-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted the defendant (Arjunan) of charges under Sections 185 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment noted critical gaps in the evidence, including the absence of a Breath Analyzer test, inconsistencies in witness timings (7:00 AM vs. 9:30 AM vs. 10:30 PM), and lack of proper medical/scientific documentation of alcohol consumption, resulting in the defendant's release under Section 278(1) of the CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the defendant (Arjunan) of charges under Sections 185 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment noted critical gaps in the evidence, including the absence of a Breath Analyzer test, inconsistencies in witness timings (7:00 AM vs. 9:30 AM vs. 10:30 PM), and lack of proper medical/scientific documentation of alcohol consumption, resulting in the defendant's release under Section 278(1) of the CrPC. 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

Judicial Magistrate Court, Devakkottai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case