SHO KKM PEW CR NO 141 2025 vs SUBRAMANIYAM — 598/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(a) 4(1) (C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP360031192025
e-Filing Number
02-10-2025
Filing Number
3118/2025
Filing Date
08-10-2025
Registration No
598/2025
Registration Date
08-10-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate Vanur
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
141
Police Station
P.E. Wing Kottakuppam
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer) KKM PEW CR NO 141 2025
Adv. Sun Inspector of Police
Respondent(s)
SUBRAMANIYAM
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate Vanur
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-03-2026 | Trial |
| 17-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 598/2025 The court discharged the respondent Subramaniyam, finding insufficient evidence to establish charges under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024. Though police recovered 24 bottles of Corona Beer from the accused on 23-04-2025 during a vehicle check, the court determined that critical procedural gaps—including the absence of independent witness statements, contradictions in police testimony, and lack of proper documentary evidence—created reasonable doubt about the accused's culpability. The court noted the investigating officer failed to corroborate key facts and rejected the case on grounds of insufficient credible evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 598/2025 The court discharged the respondent Subramaniyam, finding insufficient evidence to establish charges under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act 2024. Though police recovered 24 bottles of Corona Beer from the accused on 23-04-2025 during a vehicle check, the court determined that critical procedural gaps—including the absence of independent witness statements, contradictions in police testimony, and lack of proper documentary evidence—created reasonable doubt about the accused's culpability. The court noted the investigating officer failed to corroborate key facts and rejected the case on grounds of insufficient credible evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts