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

Case disposed

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

N.D.P.S.Act Section 8/20

Petitioner(s)

State Of U.P

Respondent(s)

tilok chandra

dayashankar urf sonu sharma

nitin kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADJ I

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

09-04-2026
copy of Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case