State of Rajasthan vs Dhiraj Advocate - chandra mohan — 432/2017
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 8,20. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Sentenced on 17th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBR110009012017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
901/2017
Filing Date
18-09-2017
Registration No
432/2017
Registration Date
18-09-2017
Court
JM Anta Taluka
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Convicted and Sentenced
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Rajasthan
Adv. apo
Respondent(s)
Dhiraj Advocate - chandra mohan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 27-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 16-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Court Decision: The District Court of Bara, Rajasthan convicted accused Dheeraj (age 49) under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act for possession of 540 grams of ganja (cannabis). The court found the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony from police officials and FSL chemical analysis reports, sufficient to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Sentencing: The accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 4 years and fined ₹4,000, with 7 days of rigorous imprisonment as default punishment if fine remains unpaid. The court rejected the defense's argument that only police witnesses testified, holding that police evidence is admissible when credible and corroborated by documentary evidence like lab reports. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court Decision: The District Court of Bara, Rajasthan convicted accused Dheeraj (age 49) under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act for possession of 540 grams of ganja (cannabis). The court found the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony from police officials and FSL chemical analysis reports, sufficient to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Sentencing: The accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 4 years and fined ₹4,000, with 7 days of rigorous imprisonment as default punishment if fine remains unpaid. The court rejected the defense's argument that only police witnesses testified, holding that police evidence is admissible when credible and corroborated by documentary evidence like lab reports. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts