DEPUTY SUPRINDENT OF POLICE vs JAYANTHAN — 80/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 02nd April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ010065152025
e-Filing Number
06-06-2025
Filing Number
4805/2025
Filing Date
18-07-2025
Registration No
80/2025
Registration Date
18-07-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Thanjavur
Judge
2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
24
Police Station
Nagapattinam P.S.,
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DEPUTY SUPRINDENT OF POLICE
Respondent(s)
JAYANTHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Special Court under the NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted Jayanthan of charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act 1985 for allegedly possessing 3.3 kg of ganja. The court found critical procedural breaches: the prior intimation document (Ex.P5) lacked date/time confirmation of receipt by superiors (violating Section 42(2)'s 72-hour requirement), the seizure mahazar contained crime number and section details before FIR registration (indicating backdating), and seized properties showed a 2+ month delay before court production without custody explanation—cumulatively creating reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case 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 Jayanthan of charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act 1985 for allegedly possessing 3.3 kg of ganja. The court found critical procedural breaches: the prior intimation document (Ex.P5) lacked date/time confirmation of receipt by superiors (violating Section 42(2)'s 72-hour requirement), the seizure mahazar contained crime number and section details before FIR registration (indicating backdating), and seized properties showed a 2+ month delay before court production without custody explanation—cumulatively creating reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case 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