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

Case disposed

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

TN PROHIBITION ACT Section 4(1)(C)TNPACT

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

12-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Judgement

06-03-2026

Evidence

26-02-2026

Evidence

24-02-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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

24-02-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case