SHO Kottakuppam PEW PS vs Ajithkumar — 313/2025

Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a),4(1)(C),4(1)(h),4(1)(A),14A. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNVP360019192025

e-Filing Number

25-04-2025

Filing Number

1919/2025

Filing Date

23-Jun-2025

Registration No

313/2025

Registration Date

23-Jun-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate Vanur

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1

Police Station

P.E. Wing Kottakuppam

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a),4(1)(C),4(1)(h),4(1)(A),14A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHO (Station House Officer) Kottakuppam PEW PS (Police Station)

    Adv. Sun Inspector of Police

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ajithkumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: 313/2025 Court Decision: The Magistrate Court discharged the accused (Ajithkumar) under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024, finding insufficient evidence that he was the actual offender. The court determined that while 45 bottles of Majestic Indian Brandy were seized from a vehicle on 02-01-2025, the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and failed to conclusively establish the accused's culpability, particularly regarding ownership and knowledge of the contraband alcohol. Key Reasoning: The court noted critical procedural and evidentiary deficiencies, including: witnesses providing conflicting accounts, absence of independent corroboration, failure to establish a clear chain of custody, and the investigating officers' failure to properly document the seizure. The court ruled that the prosecution's case lacked the necessary credibility to sustain conviction under sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(C), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(A), and 14(A) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  9. 12-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  10. 11-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  11. 19-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  12. 05-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  13. 15-Oct-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  14. 29-Sep-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  15. 20-Sep-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  16. 10-Sep-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  17. 01-Sep-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  18. 02-Aug-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  19. 25-Jul-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  20. 19-Jul-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate Vanur

  21. 01-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 23-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 313/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 313/2025 Court Decision: The Magistrate Court discharged the accused (Ajithkumar) under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024, finding insufficient evidence that he was the actual offender. The court determined that while 45 bottles of Majestic Indian Brandy were seized from a vehicle on 02-01-2025, the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and failed to conclusively establish the accused's culpability, particularly regarding ownership and knowledge of the contraband alcohol. Key Reasoning: The court noted critical procedural and evidentiary deficiencies, including: witnesses providing conflicting accounts, absence of independent corroboration, failure to establish a clear chain of custody, and the investigating officers' failure to properly document the seizure. The court ruled that the prosecution's case lacked the necessary credibility to sustain conviction under sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(C), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(A), and 14(A) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case