State of Maharashtra Through Uran Police Station vs Anarul Jafar Ali — 628/2024
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 Section 8c,27. Disposed: Contested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC on 12th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG140010952024
Filing Number
797/2024
Filing Date
02-07-2024
Registration No
628/2024
Registration Date
02-07-2024
Court
Civil Judge, J.D.and J.M.F.C., Uran
Judge
4-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--U/SEC. 258 OF CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
207
Police Station
Poynad Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Uran Police Station
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Anarul Jafar Ali
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 28-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 628/2024 Summary The First Class Magistrate's court in Uran acquitted respondent Anarul Jafar Ali of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act 1985, Sections 8(c) and 27, due to fatal deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence and chain of custody. The court found that critical physical evidence (seized contraband) was destroyed without proper documentation, no chemical analysis report was submitted, and the investigation relied on "stock witnesses" rather than credible testimony, rendering the case wholly insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 628/2024 Summary The First Class Magistrate's court in Uran acquitted respondent Anarul Jafar Ali of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act 1985, Sections 8(c) and 27, due to fatal deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence and chain of custody. The court found that critical physical evidence (seized contraband) was destroyed without proper documentation, no chemical analysis report was submitted, and the investigation relied on "stock witnesses" rather than credible testimony, rendering the case wholly insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts