State of Kerala vs Muhammed Favas Advocate - ROBIN.T.D — 100378/2022
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985\ Section S.22(C),25,27A,29. Status: FOR HEARING. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLER010029352022
Next Hearing
19th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
101799/2022
Filing Date
25-04-2022
Registration No
100378/2022
Registration Date
25-05-2022
Court
District and Sessions Court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam
Judge
2-First Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam
FIR Details
FIR Number
36
Police Station
Ernakulam Excise Range Office
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Muhammed Favas Advocate - ROBIN.T.D
Sreemon
Adv. ROBIN.T.D
Afsal Muhammed
Muhammed Ajmal
Shabna Manoj
Thoiba Dulad
Sifan Thaj
Deepesh
Anfas Sidhique
Arshak Abdul Kareem Nooran
Adv. Francis Assisi
Muhammed Shereef
Susmitha Philip
Binsar Salu
Adv. JOHN.S.RALPH
Saneesh
Mashood
Sharukh Shahal
Hilal Midhlaj.V
Shahid
Vishnu @ Unnikkuttan
Dixit
Muhammed Sahad
A22
A23
A24
A25
Hearing History
Judge: 2-First Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
For further hearing
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 31-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 23-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 21-03-2026 | For further hearing | |
| 18-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed by four accused persons under Section 9 read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed. The accused sought to have witnesses PW1 and PW8 produce their photographs for identification purposes using scientific equipment and facial enhancement software based on CCTV footage, or alternatively, requested the court to view CCTV footage and identify the witnesses. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the court's duty is to appreciate evidence presented, not to produce or identify witnesses, and noted that the relief sought was identical to a previously dismissed petition (Crl.M.P 1 of 2026), constituting an attempt to protract the case proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Order
Summary: The petition filed by four accused persons under Section 9 read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed. The accused sought to have witnesses PW1 and PW8 produce their photographs for identification purposes using scientific equipment and facial enhancement software based on CCTV footage, or alternatively, requested the court to view CCTV footage and identify the witnesses. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the court's duty is to appreciate evidence presented, not to produce or identify witnesses, and noted that the relief sought was identical to a previously dismissed petition (Crl.M.P 1 of 2026), constituting an attempt to protract the case proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
More from this court
District and Sessions Court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam All courts →Explore other courts