INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs RASAPPA — 159/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20(1)(b) NDPA ACT. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ010092362025
e-Filing Number
17-09-2025
Filing Number
6895/2025
Filing Date
17-09-2025
Registration No
159/2025
Registration Date
17-09-2025
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
328
Police Station
A.M. Nagar
Year
2007
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. shoannamalainagar chidambaram
Respondent(s)
RASAPPA
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 |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Special Court under NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted Rajappa, who was charged with illegal possession of 1.250 kg of ganja under Section 20(i)(b) of the NDPS Act 1985, due to critical prosecution failures. The court found reasonable doubts regarding: (1) the seizure mahazar containing crime number and legal section before FIR registration, (2) lack of independent witnesses and patrol duty documentation, and (3) unexplained 13-day delay in producing seized properties to court without custody clarification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Special Court under NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted Rajappa, who was charged with illegal possession of 1.250 kg of ganja under Section 20(i)(b) of the NDPS Act 1985, due to critical prosecution failures. The court found reasonable doubts regarding: (1) the seizure mahazar containing crime number and legal section before FIR registration, (2) lack of independent witnesses and patrol duty documentation, and (3) unexplained 13-day delay in producing seized properties to court without custody clarification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts