Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural P.S, u/s6(b),24( vs GURUSAMY — 331/2025
Case under Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts 2003 Section 6(b)24(1). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNVR080004482025
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Number
123/2025
Filing Date
31-07-2025
Registration No
331/2025
Registration Date
06-10-2025
Court
Additional District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar
Judge
1-Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural P.S, u/s6(b),24(
COTPA
Respondent(s)
GURUSAMY
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Additional District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This document is a witness deposition record (Judicial Form No. 53) in Sessions Case No. 331/2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, dated February 2, 2026. The witness (a police officer named Balasubramanian) testified regarding the seizure of banned tobacco products (Khadus 701 cigarette packets) on December 14, 2023, following a secret tip-off during a raid. The defense cross-examined the witness extensively, highlighting procedural gaps including inconsistencies in the written statement, failure to identify the unknown person from whom the tobacco was allegedly purchased, and lack of corroborating public complaints or witness statements. The deposition was recorded and read back to the witness for confirmation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a witness deposition record (Judicial Form No. 53) in Sessions Case No. 331/2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, dated February 2, 2026. The witness (a police officer named Balasubramanian) testified regarding the seizure of banned tobacco products (Khadus 701 cigarette packets) on December 14, 2023, following a secret tip-off during a raid. The defense cross-examined the witness extensively, highlighting procedural gaps including inconsistencies in the written statement, failure to identify the unknown person from whom the tobacco was allegedly purchased, and lack of corroborating public complaints or witness statements. The deposition was recorded and read back to the witness for confirmation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts