INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs RAJENDRAN — 160/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20(1)(b)NDPSACT. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ010092382025
e-Filing Number
17-09-2025
Filing Number
6897/2025
Filing Date
17-09-2025
Registration No
160/2025
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
309
Police Station
A.M. Nagar
Year
2007
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. shoannamalainagar chidambaram
Respondent(s)
RAJENDRAN
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Special Court under the NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted Rajendran of charges under Section 20(i)(b) of the NDPS Act 1985 for alleged possession of 1.250 kg of ganja. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: the seizure mahazar contained crime number and legal section details before the FIR was registered, no independent witnesses were examined, and seized properties showed a 16-day delay before court production without custody explanation. These procedural irregularities created reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Special Court under the NDPS Act in Thanjavur acquitted Rajendran of charges under Section 20(i)(b) of the NDPS Act 1985 for alleged possession of 1.250 kg of ganja. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: the seizure mahazar contained crime number and legal section details before the FIR was registered, no independent witnesses were examined, and seized properties showed a 16-day delay before court production without custody explanation. These procedural irregularities created reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts