STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs Alexandor — 228/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8(c),20(b)(ii)(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 22nd April 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTV150012582025
e-Filing Number
22-03-2025
Filing Number
1159/2025
Filing Date
24-09-2025
Registration No
228/2025
Registration Date
24-09-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
387
Police Station
KODAVASAL P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAVASAL PS
Respondent(s)
Alexandor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Questioning
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 20-04-2026 | Questioning |
| 16-04-2026 | Questioning |
| 09-04-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: STC 228/2025 The District Judge acquitted accused B. Alexandar of charges under NDPS Act Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Though police recovered 100 grams of cannabis from the accused on 19.10.2024, the court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no civilian witnesses corroborated the seizure, the intent to sell was not independently proven, and procedural irregularities undermined the prosecution's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: STC 228/2025 The District Judge acquitted accused B. Alexandar of charges under NDPS Act Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Though police recovered 100 grams of cannabis from the accused on 19.10.2024, the court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no civilian witnesses corroborated the seizure, the intent to sell was not independently proven, and procedural irregularities undermined the prosecution's credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts