Inspector of police PEW karur vs Muthubalaji — 24/2026

Disposed: Contested--Conviction on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKR020006152026

e-Filing Number

19-01-2026

Filing Number

384/2026

Filing Date

20-Jan-2026

Registration No

24/2026

Registration Date

20-Jan-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur

Judge

7-Judicial Magistrate No.I

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Conviction

Last updated 18-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

117

Police Station

Prohibition Enforcement Wing Karur

Year

2025

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of police PEW karur

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Muthubalaji

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Karur convicted Muthu Balaji under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act 1985 for possessing 95 grams of cannabis with intent to sell. The court sentenced him to one day imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1,000 (or 3 months additional imprisonment if fine unpaid), finding the prosecution's evidence through two special investigation officers' testimony and chemical analysis report sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 24/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Karur convicted Muthu Balaji under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act 1985 for possessing 95 grams of cannabis with intent to sell. The court sentenced him to one day imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1,000 (or 3 months additional imprisonment if fine unpaid), finding the prosecution's evidence through two special investigation officers' testimony and chemical analysis report sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case