Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/19296/2025 of Muthukumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 7 October 2026
CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025
and
CRL MP(MD)Nos.16141 and 16142 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD011551222025}
Muthukumar
S/o.Muthu Muniandi,
No.1/5154,
Aranmanai Street,
Kumarapuram,
Rosalpatti Village,
Virudhunagar Taluk and District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep., by the Inspector Of Police,
Virudhunagar Rural Police Station,
Virudhunagar District,
Crime No.96/2021.
2.G.Kamal
Sub Inspector of Police,
Virudhunagar Rural Police Station,
Virudhunagar District,
Crime No.96/2021
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: To call for the records in the case in PRC No.05/2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District and quash the same as illegal, violation of law as against the petitioner/sole accused For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Jothi Basu
For R1:
Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the sole accused in PRC.No.05/2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein he is charged with the offences under Sections 4(1-A) and 4(1)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
2. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that at about 12.00 hours on 07.06.2021, the respondent police had seized illicit arrack with Atrophin and therefore, the present FIR came to be registered, which culminated in filing of the charge sheet.
3. According to the learner counsel appearing for the petitioner, LW5 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who was the Investigation Officer. As per his statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C, he had taken half litter of the contraband as a sample and the balance liquor was destroyed by him on the spot.
CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025
4. Relying upon the said statement, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sampling and the destroying of the contraband was not done as per the as per Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
5. He relied upon the third proviso to Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and contended that the samples have to be taken only in presence of the Prohibition Officer or any other Police Officer not below the rank of the Inspector of Police. However, in the present case the sampling and destroying of the illicit arrack has been done by the Sub Inspector of Police.
6. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Velu Chettiyar vs. The State, Rep.., by the Inspector of Police, PEW, Thiruchengode Police Station, Namakkal District, reported in 2023 (2) MWN (Cr.) 395, in support of his contentions, wherein the charge sheet came to be quashed on the ground of violation of the third proviso to Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 1st respondent relying upon his counter had submitted that they have strictly followed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act at the time of taking up all the samples as well as at the time of destroying of the illicit arrack and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material records of the case.
9. As could be seen from the charge sheet, the petitioner is charged with the offence under Section 4(1-A) and 4(1)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
10. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner was found to be in possession of liquor, which is adulterated with a poisonous substance namely Atrophin.
11. As per the third proviso to Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, in cases involving illicit arrack, the sampling as well as destroying of the illicit arrack can be done only in the presence of the Prohibition Officer or any Police Officer not below the rank of the Inspector.
12. Further 161(3) statement of the Investigation Officer clearly reveals that the sampling as well as the destroying of the illicit arrack has been done by the Sub Inspector of Police, which is clearly in violation of the third proviso to Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025
13. The judgment reported in 2023 (2) MWN (Cr.) 395, referred to supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
14. In such view of the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law.
15. Therefore, the charge sheet in PRC.No.05 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District stands squashed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07-10-2026 rgm
CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025 R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. rgm To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by the Inspector Of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District, Crime No.96/2021.
2. G.Kamal Sub Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District, Crime No.96/2021 CRL OP(MD) No. 19296 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD)Nos.16141 and 16142 of 2025 07-10-2026