[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Esakki @ Esakkiraja vs State Through on 16 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.13210 and 13211 of 2025
K.Esakki @ Esakkiraja ... Petitioner/
Accused No.5
Vs.
1.State through
The Inspector of Police,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.158 of 2020) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Raja ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.,
to call for the records pertaining to S.T.C.No.1090 of 2023 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi in Crime No.158 of
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
2020 dated 18.04.2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the fifth accused in S.T.C.No.
1090 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Thoothukudi, seeking to quash the charge sheet, wherein, he is charged
with the offence under Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
2. The petitioner herein along with others were alleged to have
committed an offence under Section 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act
and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.158 of 2020 on the file of
the first respondent police on 18.04.2020.
3. The seized material was sent for forensic lab and report was
received on 03.11.2020, wherein, it is found that there is no intoxicating
material which is likely to cause death or grievous hurt to the consumer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
Thereafter, charge sheet has been laid on 24.05.2023 under Section 4(1)(a)
of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. These facts are not in dispute.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
maximum punishment for an offence under Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition Act is not less than one year but which may extend to three
years and with fine as per Section 4(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act,
1937. Therefore, according to him, as per Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., the
charge sheet having not been laid within a period of three years from the
date of the offence, it is beyond the period of limitation. He further
submitted that no application was filed under Section 473 Cr.P.C.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the first respondent police submitted that the fact that there is no
intoxicating material to cause death or grievous hurt was found only on
03.11.2020 by way of lab report and therefore, the charge sheet having
been laid within a period of three years from the said date is not barred by
limitation and therefore, that is not a ground to quash the charge sheet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
6. Heard both sides and perused the material records.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence
under Section 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and an FIR came to
be registered as against him on 18.04.2020. The respondent officials were
aware of the fact that the case would not fall under Section 4(1-A) of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on 03.11.2020 itself. Therefore, the question
of invoking Section 469(1)(b) Cr.P.C. would not arise. The said provision
can be invoked only if commission of offence was not known to the
person aggrieved or to the police officers. In the present case, commission
of offence is known to the police officer and there was a delay in getting a
lab report. Therefore, the said provision namely Section 469(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
cannot be invoked to extend the period of limitation.
8. For the offence under Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition
Act, the maximum punishment that could be imposed is only up to three
years. Therefore, Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. is squarely applicable to the
facts of this case. The charge sheet having not been laid within a period of
three years, namely on or before 17.04.2023, is clearly barred by
limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
9. In view of the said facts, the charge sheet having been laid
beyond the period of limitation, no purpose would be served in directing
the petitioner to undergo ordeal of trial and therefore, proceedings in
S.T.C.No.1090 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.III, Thoothukudi, is hereby quashed in so far as the fifth accused is
concerned, who is the petitioner herein.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
16.03.2026
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
csm
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16175 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.13210 and 13211 of 2025
Dated : 16.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:24 pm )
