SHO PANRUTI vs VIJAYA — 129/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8(c),20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS ACT. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ010075872025
e-Filing Number
30-07-2025
Filing Number
5650/2025
Filing Date
08-08-2025
Registration No
129/2025
Registration Date
08-08-2025
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
795
Police Station
Panruti
Year
2010
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer) PANRUTI
Respondent(s)
VIJAYA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Disposed
Judgement
For 313(1)(b) of Crpc questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | For 313(1)(b) of Crpc questioning |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Special Court under the NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted the accused Vijaya of charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act 1985, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical procedural violations: the raiding officer did not send information to his superior within 72 hours as mandated by Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the search consent letter lacked date and time details violating Section 50, and seized materials were produced in court only after a 6-year delay with no explanation of custody chains. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary The Special Court under the NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted the accused Vijaya of charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act 1985, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical procedural violations: the raiding officer did not send information to his superior within 72 hours as mandated by Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the search consent letter lacked date and time details violating Section 50, and seized materials were produced in court only after a 6-year delay with no explanation of custody chains. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts