Sub Inspector Of Police Amaravathinagar Ps vs Sivashanmugam — 436/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI170018012025
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
e-Filing Number
11-08-2025
Filing Number
1800/2025
Filing Date
14-08-2025
Registration No
436/2025
Registration Date
14-08-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Udumalpet
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
FIR Details
FIR Number
83
Police Station
Amaravathi Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police Amaravathinagar Ps (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Sivashanmugam
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a deposition of a prosecution witness (P.W.2) in a case involving the illegal sale of liquor under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act at the Judicial Magistrate Court, Udumalpet (CC No.436/2025). The witness, a police officer, testified about the apprehension of two individuals with four bottles of liquor and a clay pot on 27.07.2025, and the subsequent seizure and documentation procedures. The cross-examination revealed significant gaps in the investigation, including lack of public witnesses, unclear location details, and no photographs of evidence, ultimately weakening the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a deposition of a prosecution witness (P.W.2) in a case involving the illegal sale of liquor under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act at the Judicial Magistrate Court, Udumalpet (CC No.436/2025). The witness, a police officer, testified about the apprehension of two individuals with four bottles of liquor and a clay pot on 27.07.2025, and the subsequent seizure and documentation procedures. The cross-examination revealed significant gaps in the investigation, including lack of public witnesses, unclear location details, and no photographs of evidence, ultimately weakening the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts