SHO Kottakuppam PEW PS vs Anantharaj — 373/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a),4(1)(C),4(1)(h),4(1)(A),14A. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP360023812025
e-Filing Number
15-08-2025
Filing Number
2380/2025
Filing Date
18-08-2025
Registration No
373/2025
Registration Date
19-08-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate Vanur
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
68
Police Station
P.E. Wing Kottakuppam
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer) Kottakuppam PEW PS (Police Station)
Adv. Sun Inspector of Police
Respondent(s)
Anantharaj
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 |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 373/2025 (SHO Kottakuppam PEW PS v. Anantharaj) The court acquitted two accused charged under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024 for illegal possession of brandy. Evidence showed 47 bottles of Gold Treat VSOP Brandy and 3 bottles of JD Black Brandy were seized from a vehicle on 16-03-2025, but only the 3 JD Black bottles were in "pure form." The court found insufficient evidence establishing the accused as offenders since witnesses failed to corroborate key facts, and government witnesses contradicted critical procedural elements. The court discharged the accused under BNSS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 373/2025 (SHO Kottakuppam PEW PS v. Anantharaj) The court acquitted two accused charged under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024 for illegal possession of brandy. Evidence showed 47 bottles of Gold Treat VSOP Brandy and 3 bottles of JD Black Brandy were seized from a vehicle on 16-03-2025, but only the 3 JD Black bottles were in "pure form." The court found insufficient evidence establishing the accused as offenders since witnesses failed to corroborate key facts, and government witnesses contradicted critical procedural elements. The court discharged the accused under BNSS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts