PEWing Kottakuppam vs Senthilkumar — 253/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(h),4(1)(a),14A,4(1)(C),4(1)(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP360016932025
Filing Number
1693/2025
Filing Date
20-05-2025
Registration No
253/2025
Registration Date
20-05-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate Vanur
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
31
Police Station
P.E. Wing Kottakuppam
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PEWing Kottakuppam
Respondent(s)
Senthilkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate Vanur
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 253/2025 The Magistrate Court in Kottakuppam acquitted respondent Senthilkumar of charges under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024 (Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(C), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(A), 14(A)) for alleged illegal liquor possession. The court found significant evidentiary gaps: investigating officers failed to provide credible witness testimonies, the chain of custody for seized brandy bottles was compromised, and conflicting police statements undermined the case. The court held that without reliable corroboration and given procedural irregularities, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the accused not the offender in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 253/2025 The Magistrate Court in Kottakuppam acquitted respondent Senthilkumar of charges under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024 (Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(C), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(A), 14(A)) for alleged illegal liquor possession. The court found significant evidentiary gaps: investigating officers failed to provide credible witness testimonies, the chain of custody for seized brandy bottles was compromised, and conflicting police statements undermined the case. The court held that without reliable corroboration and given procedural irregularities, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the accused not the offender in this 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