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

Case disposed

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

TN PROHIBITION ACT Section 4(1)(C)

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

08-04-2026

Disposed

07-04-2026

Judgement

26-03-2026

Questioning

24-03-2026

Evidence

23-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case