Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Garnish Electronics Pvt.Ltd. Through ... on 11 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13598
1 CRR-4945-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4945 of 2023
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
GARNISH ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR RUBI
Appearance:
Mr. Manoj Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shaswat - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-P/1) in MJCR No.256/2023 by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985, Neemuch whereby Hyuadai Santro Car bearing Vehile No.DL-6-CS-0355 registered in the name of Garnish Electronics Private Limited seized in connection with Crime No.15/2023 registered with Central Bureau of Narcotis, Neemuch under Sections 8 r/w 15 and 8 r/w 18 of NDPS, 1985 has been released in favour of the registered owner Ruby Sehgal, who is the Director of Garnish Electronics Private Limited.
02. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.05.2023, 161.650 kilograms of poppy straw and 100 grams of opium were recovered from the driver of a tractor driver by Sunderlal Rawat. According to the prosecution, after the recovery of the contraband from the tractor, information was received that the actual driver of the said tractor was one Vijaypal and that the contraband was being transported at the instance of Ajay Sehgal for delivery in Uttar Pradesh at a motel. Thereafter, on 18.05.2023, the car carrying Ajay Sehgal, along with a motorcycle ridden by Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 11-May-26 8:19:04 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13598 2 CRR-4945-2023 his driver, was intercepted.
03. This revision petition has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the car vehicle was also involved in the transportation of the contraband and was allegedly used in conveyance with the accused persons in the commission of the offence. The provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 has not been considered.
Heard.
04. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition. Perused the record.
05. The facts revealed from the record indicate that no contraband was recovered from the said vehicle, and the registered owner thereof is not an accused in the present case. The trial Court has also imposed appropriate conditions to ensure protection of the vehicle, if required during the course of the trial or for the purpose of confiscation. Accordingly, no illegality is found in the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition stands dismissed.
06. Record of the courts below be sent back with the copy of this order for information.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 11-May-26 8:19:04 PM