MADURAI: A national-level archer’s Assam Rifles dream was dashed by a ganja case foisted on him by the SS Colony police in Madurai in 2020. The FIR did not reach the jurisdictional court for four years, in just one day (Dec 27, 2020), the inspector registered the FIR, held inquiry and ‘finalised’ a chargesheet, and the magistrate court ‘took the chargesheet on record’ five years later though it gets time-barred after one year. Six years later, finding too many loopholes in the police theory and faulting the judicial magistrate court for not applying its judicial mind, Madras high court quashed the case.
It all began in 2022 when S Sivaganesh, a national-level archer, intended to apply for Assam Rifles’ 2022 Rifleman (general duty) recruitment. The SS Colony police claimed to have seized 270 grams of ganja in 27 packets from him at Nehru Nagar junction on Dec 27, 2020, booking him under the NDPS Act. On Oct 14, Justice P Murugan quashed the FIR and trial proceedings as time-barred.
He also directed Madurai city police commissioner to take ‘appropriate legal action’ against Perarasi and submit an action-taken report within three months of receiving the order.
He approached high court in Sept 2024, challenging the case as false and time-barred. In Sept 2026, the bench sought explanations from the magistrate and investigating officer over the delay.
A per records, sub-inspector M Perarasi registered the case, examined witnesses and prepared the final report on Dec 27, 2020 itself. When Sivaganesh sought certified copies of the FIR and chargesheet, V Judicial Magistrate in Madurai returned his application on May 13, 2024. The report was e-filed in Aug 2022, but the FIR and chargesheet were produced before court only in Oct 2025. Still, the magistrate took the case on file in May 2026, inviting the wrath of high court.
The order recorded that sub-inspector Perarasi had “expressed regret for the delay in forwarding the final report to the court and apologised for the lapse on her part”. Finding concrete evidence supporting Sivaganesh’s allegation of a foisted case, the judge said: “The act of the investigation officer is nothing but falsification of public record before the court of law.” She, however, ‘forgot’ about the case after the station shifted from rented premises to its own building. Till then the FIR had not reached the court.