STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVANCHERY vs ANANTH — 24/2026
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 08th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV150013002025
e-Filing Number
02-10-2025
Filing Number
1200/2025
Filing Date
05-11-2025
Registration No
24/2026
Registration Date
23-01-2026
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
133
Police Station
ERAVANCHERY P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVANCHERY
Adv. Selvam U
Respondent(s)
ANANTH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 26-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The court acquitted the accused S. Anandh of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing 180ml of illicit brandy. The court found that the prosecution failed to follow mandatory procedures under Section 32(c) of the TNP Act—specifically, the seizure and destruction of the liquor were not conducted in the presence of a Prohibition Officer or Police Inspector as required by law. Due to these procedural deficiencies and lack of independent witness testimony, the court held that reasonable doubt existed regarding the case and acquitted the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The court acquitted the accused S. Anandh of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for allegedly possessing 180ml of illicit brandy. The court found that the prosecution failed to follow mandatory procedures under Section 32(c) of the TNP Act—specifically, the seizure and destruction of the liquor were not conducted in the presence of a Prohibition Officer or Police Inspector as required by law. Due to these procedural deficiencies and lack of independent witness testimony, the court held that reasonable doubt existed regarding the case and acquitted the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts