The Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station vs Nithish — 66/2024
Case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8c20bii(B)25. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ010061482024
e-Filing Number
02-05-2024
Filing Number
4281/2024
Filing Date
29-05-2024
Registration No
66/2024
Registration Date
29-05-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Thanjavur
Judge
2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
138
Police Station
Panruti
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station
Adv. Spl.Pp
Respondent(s)
Nithish
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Special Court under the NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted accused A1, A3, and A4 of drug smuggling charges on March 11, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the raiding officer violated mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act by: (1) failing to document and report secret information to superiors as required under Section 42(2), and (2) issuing a joint search notice and consent letter to multiple accused instead of individual notices under Section 50(1), which dilutes their legal rights. Additionally, a 15-day delay in producing seized contraband before the court without explanation raised further doubts about evidence custody and integrity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Special Court under the NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted accused A1, A3, and A4 of drug smuggling charges on March 11, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the raiding officer violated mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act by: (1) failing to document and report secret information to superiors as required under Section 42(2), and (2) issuing a joint search notice and consent letter to multiple accused instead of individual notices under Section 50(1), which dilutes their legal rights. Additionally, a 15-day delay in producing seized contraband before the court without explanation raised further doubts about evidence custody and integrity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts