The State - Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Cheyyar vs Desika Alias Deivasigamani Advocate - A.K.Gowthaman — 100137/2011
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(aaa) r/w. 4(1-A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 15th April 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNTM040002272011
Filing Number
100137/2011
Filing Date
06-01-2011
Registration No
100137/2011
Registration Date
20-10-2011
Court
Sub Court, Cheyyar
Judge
2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
186
Police Station
P. E. W., Cheyyar
Year
2010
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State - Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Cheyyar
Respondent(s)
Desika Alias Deivasigamani Advocate - A.K.Gowthaman
Balaji S/o. Inabam
Adv. K.Ramu, B.A., B.L.,
Balu S/o. Punithan
Adv. K.Ramu, B.A., B.L.,
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Disposed
Questioning
Questioning
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Questioning |
| 24-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 17-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 13-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 100137/2011 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Court, Chengara acquitted all three accused (Desika alias Deivasigamani, Balaji, and Balu) of charges under the Prohibition Act. The court found that while the prosecution presented witness testimony and physical evidence regarding the seizure of 350 liters of illicit liquor on February 15, 2010, the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court cited contradictions in witness statements, procedural irregularities including delays in case filing, and gaps in documentary evidence, ultimately finding insufficient grounds to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100137/2011 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Court, Chengara acquitted all three accused (Desika alias Deivasigamani, Balaji, and Balu) of charges under the Prohibition Act. The court found that while the prosecution presented witness testimony and physical evidence regarding the seizure of 350 liters of illicit liquor on February 15, 2010, the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court cited contradictions in witness statements, procedural irregularities including delays in case filing, and gaps in documentary evidence, ultimately finding insufficient grounds to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts