STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs MANIKANDAN — 6/2026
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTV150016062025
e-Filing Number
30-12-2025
Filing Number
1495/2025
Filing Date
30-12-2025
Registration No
6/2026
Registration Date
21-01-2026
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
134
Police Station
ERAVANCHERY P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. Selvam U
Respondent(s)
MANIKANDAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 26-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted K. Manikandan of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, granting him the benefit of doubt. The judgment found critical procedural violations: the seized alcohol was destroyed without following mandatory requirements under Section 32(c) of the TNP Act, which mandates destruction only in the presence of a Prohibition Officer or Inspector, with proper documentation and samples retained. The absence of independent witnesses and lack of proper chain-of-custody procedures created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted K. Manikandan of charges under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, granting him the benefit of doubt. The judgment found critical procedural violations: the seized alcohol was destroyed without following mandatory requirements under Section 32(c) of the TNP Act, which mandates destruction only in the presence of a Prohibition Officer or Inspector, with proper documentation and samples retained. The absence of independent witnesses and lack of proper chain-of-custody procedures created reasonable doubt 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
Explore other courts