Sub Inspector Of Police, Udumalpet Ps vs KATTURAJA — 308/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C) TNP ACT. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI170012442025
e-Filing Number
13-04-2025
Filing Number
1243/2025
Filing Date
25-06-2025
Registration No
308/2025
Registration Date
27-06-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Udumalpet
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
140
Police Station
Udumalpet Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police, Udumalpet Ps (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
KATTURAJA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Questioning
Trial
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 26-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 09-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 02-02-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Udumalpet Magistrate Court acquitted Katturaja (27 years old) of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (TNP) Act for allegedly possessing and attempting to sell 180 ML of Express brandy bottles without government permission. The court found that the prosecution's evidence, based solely on three police witnesses' testimonies, contained significant inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the location of the incident, number of persons present, and timeline of events, rendering it insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court discharged the accused under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Udumalpet Magistrate Court acquitted Katturaja (27 years old) of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (TNP) Act for allegedly possessing and attempting to sell 180 ML of Express brandy bottles without government permission. The court found that the prosecution's evidence, based solely on three police witnesses' testimonies, contained significant inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the location of the incident, number of persons present, and timeline of events, rendering it insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court discharged the accused under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts