CRL OP(MD)/10078/2026 of Francis Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police, Pew-Sattur on 10 November 2026

ORDER

The present petition is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.37 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash FIR, wherein the petitioner is charged for the offence under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.

2. A perusal of FIR reveals that when the respondent police conducted an inspection in the petitioner’s company, they found two barrels of 300 ltrs of molasses (sugarcane juice). FIR further reveals that the molasses is likely to be used for preparation of illicit arrack.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he is running an industry in the name and style of Samuel Traders. He had applied before the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Virudhunagar on 22.01.2026 seeking permission to possess molasses for the purpose running the machineries to produce the oil and sugar cane. The said request has been answered by the concerned Commissioner directing the petitioner to approach the District Industries Centre to get an appropriate certificate. The certificate was issued to the said effect on 26.03.2026 after going through the demo for which sugar cane molasses has been used. The inspection has been conducted by the police officials on 11.04.2026. Thereafter, it is clear that only for genuine purposes, the __________

( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 02:31:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 10078 of 2026 petitioner had stored the sugar cane molasses and even as per FIR, there is only possibility of illicit production of alcohol.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent relied upon his counter and contended that the petitioner has procured 300 litres of sugarcane molasses illegally without licence or permission and hence prima facie case is clearly made out as against the petitioner. He further submitted that even without getting permission from the concerned authorities, admittedly the petitioner was storing sugar cane molasses.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material records.

6. As could be seen from the records, the petitioner has to establish the production activity before the District Industry Centre, Virudhunagar for getting a licence from the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) and in order to show the production activity, a demo has to be conducted and that was done and a certificate to the said effect was issued by District Industry Centre, Virudhunagar on 26.03.2026. __________

( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 02:31:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 10078 of 2026

7. In such circumstances, it is clear that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to use the sugar cane molasses for the purpose of manufacture of alcohol.

8. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law and therefore, FIR in Crime No.37 of 2026 on the file of first respondent Police dated 11.04.2026 stands quashed.

9. In fine, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No CM __________

( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 02:31:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 10078 of 2026 To

1. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Pew-Sattur Virudhunagar District

2. S.Karthika The Sub-Inspector of Police PEW Sattur Virudhunagar District

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai __________

( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 02:31:17 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 10078 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR J. CM CRL OP(MD) No. 10078 of 2026 AND CRL MP(MD) NO. 10127 OF 2026 10-11-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 02:31:17 pm )