STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs SANKAR — 223/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C)TNPACT. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV150011032025
e-Filing Number
12-08-2025
Filing Number
1010/2025
Filing Date
12-08-2025
Registration No
223/2025
Registration Date
24-09-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
165
Police Station
ERAVANCHERY P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. Selvam U
Respondent(s)
SANKAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused M. Sankar of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, granting him the benefit of doubt. The court found critical procedural violations in the seizure and destruction of 180ml bottles of illicit brandy—specifically, the liquor was destroyed without the mandatory presence of a senior police officer or Prohibition Officer as required by Section 32(c) of the Act, and no independent civilian witnesses corroborated the seizure, creating substantial doubts about the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court acquitted the accused M. Sankar of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, granting him the benefit of doubt. The court found critical procedural violations in the seizure and destruction of 180ml bottles of illicit brandy—specifically, the liquor was destroyed without the mandatory presence of a senior police officer or Prohibition Officer as required by Section 32(c) of the Act, and no independent civilian witnesses corroborated the seizure, creating substantial doubts about the prosecution's 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