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
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
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
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Evidence
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts