Inspector Of Police Kariapatti Ps vs Andichamy Advocate - Mr.P.Pandiaraj — 93/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 328IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNVR090003912024

e-Filing Number

20-01-2024

Filing Number

76/2024

Filing Date

06-Feb-2024

Registration No

93/2024

Registration Date

27-May-2024

Court

Sub Court, Virudhunagar

Judge

2-Subordinate Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 328IPC
Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts 2003 Section 24(1)COTPAAct
Tn Prohibition of Smoking & Spitting Act, 2003 Section 7,9(ii)TNPSSAct

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector Of Police Kariapatti Ps (Police Station)

    Adv. Inspector of Police kariyapatti

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Andichamy Advocate - Mr.P.Pandiaraj

  2. 2.Meenatchi

    Adv. Mr.P.Pandiaraj

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Subordinate Judge

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Subordinate Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Subordinate Judge

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Subordinate Judge

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

    Case Summary This is a witness deposition (PW4) in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2024 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, concerning a tobacco smuggling case. The prosecution witness, a 40-year-old police officer, testified that on 02.09.2022, he and colleagues conducted a raid near Indian Bank in Kariyapatti and seized 4 pouches of Kapus 701 tobacco (approximately 5-7 pouches total) from two accused persons, with the second accused voluntarily producing additional stock from her shop. The defense cross-examination revealed significant procedural gaps, including lack of proper documentation, absence of independent witnesses, no seizure list preparation, and conflicting details about investigation procedures, undermining the prosecution's case credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  9. 16-Feb-2026

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  12. 20-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  13. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  14. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  15. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  16. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  17. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  18. 20-Jun-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  19. 24-Mar-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  20. 07-Jan-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  21. 07-Nov-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  22. 03-Sep-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  23. 18-Jul-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  24. 27-Jun-2024

    Appearance

    Subordinate Judge

  25. 14-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 06-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 93/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary This is a witness deposition (PW4) in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2024 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, concerning a tobacco smuggling case. The prosecution witness, a 40-year-old police officer, testified that on 02.09.2022, he and colleagues conducted a raid near Indian Bank in Kariyapatti and seized 4 pouches of Kapus 701 tobacco (approximately 5-7 pouches total) from two accused persons, with the second accused voluntarily producing additional stock from her shop. The defense cross-examination revealed significant procedural gaps, including lack of proper documentation, absence of independent witnesses, no seizure list preparation, and conflicting details about investigation procedures, undermining the prosecution's case credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case