State Of U.P vs tilok chandra — 2826/2023
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8/20. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 09th April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: UPMP010116782023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10700/2023
Filing Date
30-11-2023
Registration No
2826/2023
Registration Date
30-11-2023
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-ADJ I
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
184
Police Station
DANNAHAR
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P
Respondent(s)
tilok chandra
dayashankar urf sonu sharma
nitin kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADJ I
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 28-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 27-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted three accused persons (Trilok Chandra Goswami, Dyashankar alias Sonu Sharma, and Nitin Kumar) of charges under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that critical procedural violations occurred—specifically, non-compliance with Sections 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act regarding arrest procedures and mandatory reporting requirements. Additionally, contradictions in witness testimony, inadequate documentation of the district magistrate's presence during search, and procedural irregularities rendered the recovery of seized cannabis materials and the arrests legally suspect and unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted three accused persons (Trilok Chandra Goswami, Dyashankar alias Sonu Sharma, and Nitin Kumar) of charges under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that critical procedural violations occurred—specifically, non-compliance with Sections 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act regarding arrest procedures and mandatory reporting requirements. Additionally, contradictions in witness testimony, inadequate documentation of the district magistrate's presence during search, and procedural irregularities rendered the recovery of seized cannabis materials and the arrests legally suspect and unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts