12 Aug 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras High Court (Principal Seat) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.
adverse finding compensation.
Source: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0055Chennai, Tamil NaduJudgment 12 August 2025
Chennai Man v. State (NDPS Case - Fabricated Evidence)
The Madras High Court acquitted [name withheld] in an NDPS case where he was convicted for possession of 20.3 kg of ganja. The Single Judge found that the police had fabricated the case: the seizure mahazar, arrest report, and arrest intimation all contained the crime number (Crime No. 931 of 2021) before the FIR was even registered. The court noted the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness from the public despite the alleged seizure occurring in a marketplace. The informant and investigating officer were the same person (PW1), and all documents were typed, indicating they were prepared in the police station rather than at the scene. The court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Kaaljit Singh v. State of Punjab that such discrepancies create serious doubts fatal to the prosecution case.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 12 August 2025 in Crl.A. No. 1202 of 2025, the Madras High Court (Principal Seat) (Coram: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) adjudicated the matter concerning 2 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, V4 Rajamangalam Police Station; Police Constable, V4 Rajamangalam Police Station.
- Register number
- TN 01 CW 0036
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No. 1202 of 2025 / 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Principal Seat) (Coram: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), 12 August 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Inspector of Police, V4 Rajamangalam Police Station; Police Constable, V4 Rajamangalam Police Station
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; the Section 50, NDPS Act
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is not legitimate and creates doubt over the case of the prosecution... the entire case of the prosecution is foisted one and the prosecution failed to prove the charge in the manner known …” (at para para 6-7)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Adverse finding. Sentence: imprisonment.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 12 August 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is not legitimate and creates doubt over the case of the prosecution... the entire case of the prosecution is foisted one and the prosecution failed to prove the charge in the manner known …” (para para 6-7)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
24 Sep 2026
(Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).)
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.