SHO Taluk Police Station Villupuram vs Deenadhayalan — 259/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 328. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNVP010055502025

Case disposed

Filing Number

5006/2025

Filing Date

09-10-2025

Registration No

259/2025

Registration Date

09-10-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Viluppuram

Judge

18-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 328
Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts 2003 Section 24(1)

Petitioner(s)

SHO (Station House Officer) Taluk Police Station Villupuram

Adv. Subramanian. T.S.

Respondent(s)

Deenadhayalan

Hearing History

Judge: 18-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)

16-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Judgement

12-03-2026

Questioning

11-03-2026

Trial

09-03-2026

Trial

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Additional District Court (Fast Track), Villupuram found the accused Deenadayalan NOT GUILTY of charges under Section 328 read with Section 24(1) of the COTPA Act 2003 (selling harmful tobacco products). The court determined the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to significant evidentiary gaps, inconsistent police witness testimonies, lack of private complainant witnesses, and procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-02-2026
Deposition
05-02-2026
Deposition
05-03-2026
Deposition
05-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional District Court (Fast Track), Villupuram found the accused Deenadayalan NOT GUILTY of charges under Section 328 read with Section 24(1) of the COTPA Act 2003 (selling harmful tobacco products). The court determined the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to significant evidentiary gaps, inconsistent police witness testimonies, lack of private complainant witnesses, and procedural deficiencies in the investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Principal District Court, Viluppuram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case