STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs VASANTHAKUMAR — 260/2025

Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNTV150009462025

e-Filing Number

23-06-2025

Filing Number

866/2025

Filing Date

04-Apr-2025

Registration No

260/2025

Registration Date

25-Sep-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 24-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

129

Police Station

KODAVASAL P.S

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

    Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAVASAL PS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VASANTHAKUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The District Magistrate Court in Kodavasal acquitted J. Vasanthakumar of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, applying the benefit of doubt principle. The court found that while police witnesses testified to seizing 25 bottles of Golden Choices Brandy from the accused on 01.05.2025, critical procedural violations under Section 32 of the TNP Act undermined the prosecution's case—specifically, the seized liquor was destroyed without the mandatory presence of a senior police officer (Inspector rank or above) and without proper sampling and certification procedures required by law. The absence of civilian witnesses to identify the accused and substantial gaps in evidence documentation created reasonable doubt that favored the accused's acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  9. 09-Mar-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  11. 12-Feb-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  12. 20-Jan-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  13. 20-Jan-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  14. 09-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  15. 16-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  16. 10-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  17. 01-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  18. 17-Nov-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  19. 27-Oct-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  20. 25-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 04-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 260/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The District Magistrate Court in Kodavasal acquitted J. Vasanthakumar of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, applying the benefit of doubt principle. The court found that while police witnesses testified to seizing 25 bottles of Golden Choices Brandy from the accused on 01.05.2025, critical procedural violations under Section 32 of the TNP Act undermined the prosecution's case—specifically, the seized liquor was destroyed without the mandatory presence of a senior police officer (Inspector rank or above) and without proper sampling and certification procedures required by law. The absence of civilian witnesses to identify the accused and substantial gaps in evidence documentation created reasonable doubt that favored the accused's acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case