STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVANCHERY vs YOGARAJ — 23/2026

Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th April 2026.

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNTV150013042025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

02-10-2025

Filing Number

1204/2025

Filing Date

05-11-2025

Registration No

23/2026

Registration Date

23-01-2026

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

30th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

142

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)

YOGARAJ

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

30-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Judgement

26-03-2026

Judgement

24-03-2026

Evidence

23-03-2026

Issue of Service

Final Orders / Judgements

30-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The District Court (Kodavasal) acquitted M. Yogaraj of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for possessing 180ml of banned liquor, citing reasonable doubt. The court found critical procedural violations: the seized liquor was destroyed without following mandatory legal procedures requiring a Prohibition Officer or police inspector's presence, samples were not taken, and no independent witness testimony corroborated the case. Due to these evidentiary gaps and lack of proper documentation, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused and discharged him from all charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The District Court (Kodavasal) acquitted M. Yogaraj of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for possessing 180ml of banned liquor, citing reasonable doubt. The court found critical procedural violations: the seized liquor was destroyed without following mandatory legal procedures requiring a Prohibition Officer or police inspector's presence, samples were not taken, and no independent witness testimony corroborated the case. Due to these evidentiary gaps and lack of proper documentation, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused and discharged him from all charges. 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