State of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police Katpadi PS vs KATHIRVEL Advocate - BALAJI M — 45/2026
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C),4(1)(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVL240003362026
e-Filing Number
13-02-2026
Filing Number
336/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
45/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Katpadi
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate,Katpadi
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
472
Police Station
KATPADI
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police Katpadi PS (Police Station)
Adv. Inspector of Police
Respondent(s)
KATHIRVEL Advocate - BALAJI M
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial Magistrate,Katpadi
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Questioning
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 10-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 07-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 04-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC.No. 45/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Kathirvel under Sections 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that mandatory legal procedures under Section 32 of the TNP Amendment Act—requiring samples to be drawn in the presence of a Prohibition Officer or senior police officer—were not followed, rendering the evidence defective and insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC.No. 45/2026 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Kathirvel under Sections 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that mandatory legal procedures under Section 32 of the TNP Amendment Act—requiring samples to be drawn in the presence of a Prohibition Officer or senior police officer—were not followed, rendering the evidence defective and insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts