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
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
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
Call on
Call on
Call on
Call on
Appearance of Accused
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts