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.

Case disposed

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

Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a),4(1)(i)TNPACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sub Inspector Of Police Vandavasi North Police Station

    Adv. Sub Inspector of police

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karthikeyan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  3. 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.

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  5. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  6. 01-Apr-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  11. 18-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  12. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  13. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  14. 12-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  15. 16-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  16. 26-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  17. 12-Nov-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  18. 12-Nov-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  19. 12-Nov-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  20. 12-Nov-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  21. 06-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  22. 01-Nov-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate,Vandavasi

  23. 22-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 22-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1564/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case