Sub Inspector Of Police Vandavasi North Police Station vs Karthikeyan — 1564/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a),4(1)(i)TNPACT. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 20th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTM150035262025
e-Filing Number
22-10-2025
Filing Number
3526/2025
Filing Date
22-Oct-2025
Registration No
1564/2025
Registration Date
22-Oct-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
Decision Date
20-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
135
Police Station
North Police Station, Vandavasi
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sub Inspector Of Police Vandavasi North Police Station
Adv. Sub Inspector of police
Respondent(s)
-
1.Karthikeyan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
-
20-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: 1564/2025 Court Decision: The Magistrate's Court acquitted both accused (Sub Inspector Karthikeyan and another officer) of charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(i) r/w 4(1)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the accused sold 115 liquor bottles for commercial purposes. The court ruled that possession alone does not establish intent to sell without corroborating evidence such as witness testimony from actual buyers or seizure documentation per legal procedures. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove the three essential elements for conviction: possession of liquor bottles, that bottles contained alcohol, and that possession was for sale rather than personal consumption. Critical procedural lapses—including improper sample collection and lack of proper destruction certificates under Section 32(c) of the Prohibition Act—weakened the case, and the testimonies of government witnesses did not establish the accused's criminal intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Apr-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
07-Apr-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
01-Apr-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
13-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
09-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
25-Feb-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
25-Feb-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
18-Feb-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
30-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
19-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
12-Jan-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
16-Dec-2025
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
26-Nov-2025
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
12-Nov-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Nov-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Nov-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Nov-2025
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
06-Nov-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
01-Nov-2025
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi
-
22-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1564/2025
Case Summary: 1564/2025 Court Decision: The Magistrate's Court acquitted both accused (Sub Inspector Karthikeyan and another officer) of charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(i) r/w 4(1)(A), finding insufficient evidence to prove the accused sold 115 liquor bottles for commercial purposes. The court ruled that possession alone does not establish intent to sell without corroborating evidence such as witness testimony from actual buyers or seizure documentation per legal procedures. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove the three essential elements for conviction: possession of liquor bottles, that bottles contained alcohol, and that possession was for sale rather than personal consumption. Critical procedural lapses—including improper sample collection and lack of proper destruction certificates under Section 32(c) of the Prohibition Act—weakened the case, and the testimonies of government witnesses did not establish the accused's criminal intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts