The Inspector of Police, PEW, Nannilam vs Dharmaraj — 41/2019
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(aaa), 4(i). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTV090007822019
Filing Number
745/2019
Filing Date
20-12-2019
Registration No
41/2019
Registration Date
20-12-2019
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Valangaiman
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
164
Police Station
PEW Nannilam
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Inspector of Police, PEW, Nannilam
Adv. APP GRADE 1
Respondent(s)
Dharmaraj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 02-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Criminal Court in Valangaiman acquitted accused Dharmaraj of charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) for allegedly possessing 108 liters of illicit arrack in plastic containers and Rs. 100 in cash. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the destruction of seized contraband did not comply with mandatory statutory procedures under Section 32(c) of the TNP Act, which requires destruction to occur in the presence of a senior police officer or prohibition officer, with proper certification—procedures not followed in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Criminal Court in Valangaiman acquitted accused Dharmaraj of charges under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) for allegedly possessing 108 liters of illicit arrack in plastic containers and Rs. 100 in cash. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the destruction of seized contraband did not comply with mandatory statutory procedures under Section 32(c) of the TNP Act, which requires destruction to occur in the presence of a senior police officer or prohibition officer, with proper certification—procedures not followed in this 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