Sub Inspector Of Police Uthukuli Ps vs KARTHICK Advocate - S Dhanapal — 544/2024
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTI230023862024
e-Filing Number
06-09-2024
Filing Number
2358/2024
Filing Date
06-09-2024
Registration No
544/2024
Registration Date
06-09-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukuli
Judge
1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
405
Police Station
Utukulli Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector Of Police Uthukuli Ps (Police Station)
Adv. Additional Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
KARTHICK Advocate - S Dhanapal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 22-01-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 16-12-2025 | Issue of Service | |
| 20-11-2025 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Munsif Court in Uthukuli acquitted accused Karthik of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, holding that the prosecution failed to prove possession for sale beyond reasonable doubt. Although eight bottles of brandy (1.44 litres total) were seized, this quantity fell within the permissible 4.5-litre limit, and the prosecution presented no evidence of sale activity, purchasers, or independent witnesses to establish the intent to sell. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Munsif Court in Uthukuli acquitted accused Karthik of charges under Section 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, holding that the prosecution failed to prove possession for sale beyond reasonable doubt. Although eight bottles of brandy (1.44 litres total) were seized, this quantity fell within the permissible 4.5-litre limit, and the prosecution presented no evidence of sale activity, purchasers, or independent witnesses to establish the intent to sell. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts