SHO HBR PS vs Afsal Advocate - ISAC SANJAY — 300527/2024

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985\ Section 20(b)(ii)A. Status: Call on. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLER260022222024

Call on

Next Hearing

09th April 2026

Filing Number

302221/2024

Filing Date

28-11-2024

Registration No

300527/2024

Registration Date

28-11-2024

Court

Judicial First class Magistrate Court 1, Kochi

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985\ Section 20(b)(ii)A
Crl.mp/791/2025 Classification : Discharge Petition Section AfsalSHO HBR PS

Petitioner(s)

SHO (Station House Officer) HBR PS (Police Station)

Adv. App

Respondent(s)

Afsal Advocate - ISAC SANJAY

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

07-03-2026

Call on

29-01-2026

Call on

30-12-2025

Call on

12-12-2025

Call on

07-10-2025

Appearance of Accused

Interim Orders

02-09-2025
Order

Summary: The discharge petition filed by Afsal, aged 21/24, accused of possessing 350.87 grams of ganja under Section 20(b) II A of the NDPS Act, was dismissed. The court found that the allegations were not groundless, as contraband was seized from the petitioner's possession and chemical analysis confirmed it was ganja. While the court acknowledged alleged procedural non-compliances with Sections 50, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act, it held these provisions are directory rather than mandatory and such issues must be examined during trial. The veracity of the search, seizure, and prosecution can only be properly evaluated at the trial stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The discharge petition filed by Afsal, aged 21/24, accused of possessing 350.87 grams of ganja under Section 20(b) II A of the NDPS Act, was dismissed. The court found that the allegations were not groundless, as contraband was seized from the petitioner's possession and chemical analysis confirmed it was ganja. While the court acknowledged alleged procedural non-compliances with Sections 50, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act, it held these provisions are directory rather than mandatory and such issues must be examined during trial. The veracity of the search, seizure, and prosecution can only be properly evaluated at the trial stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Judicial First class Magistrate Court 1, Kochi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case