In a packed courtroom on Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Jothi @ Nagajothi, a 24-year-old woman from Tamil Nadu, who had challenged her conviction in a 2019 ganja seizure case. The bench, led by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, upheld the 10-year rigorous imprisonment imposed earlier, bringing a sense of finality to a dispute that had travelled from the trial court to the High Court and finally to the apex court.
Background
According to the prosecution, Jothi and her husband were intercepted on a two-wheeler in September 2019 after police received a tip-off about illegal transport of ganja. Officers claimed they recovered 23.5 kg of the substance, along with cash, from the vehicle. The trial court believed the version of the police and convicted both, a finding the Madras High Court later affirmed.
During the hearing, Jothi’s counsel argued that the case was riddled with procedural lapses-no independent witnesses were present despite a residential setting, and samples were taken on the spot instead of before a magistrate. He insisted these gaps were serious enough to scrap the conviction.
Court’s Observations
The bench was not convinced.
On the absence of independent witnesses, the bench noted that police personnel had given consistent testimony. “The bench observed, ‘Mere non-examination of independent witnesses cannot discredit evidence that is otherwise trustworthy,’” reflecting long-standing judicial precedent.
Regarding the key argument-improper sampling-the court referred to its own precedents to clarify that drawing samples at the spot is not fatal unless the integrity of material is compromised. Here, the court said, there was no such indication. The forensic officer had confirmed that seals were intact, and the magistrate’s record clearly described sample packets as S-1 and S-2.
A small reduction in sample weight-50 g at seizure but 40.6 g at the lab-was dismissed as normal drying. As the judge remarked during the hearing, “Natural moisture loss cannot, by itself, demolish the prosecution case.”
As for Jothi’s plea for leniency because she was young and caring for a minor child, the bench expressed sympathy but emphasised that the NDPS Act leaves no room to reduce the mandatory minimum when commercial quantity is involved.
Decision
After weighing all submissions, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of both the trial court and the Madras High Court, concluding that the prosecution had proved conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, with the court adding that Jothi may still explore statutory remission before appropriate authorities.
Case Title: Jothi @ Nagajothi vs. State, represented by the Inspector of Police
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (NDPS Act – Conviction Challenge)
Decision Date: 11 December 2025