Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajaram @ Kallu Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
1 MCRC-47720-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47720 of 2025
RAJARAM @ KALLU PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri SP Chadar - GA for the State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS/ under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. assailing order dated 08.10.2025 passed by Special Judge
(NDPS Act), in SC NDPS No.52 /2025 District - Katni, whereby, the
petitioner's application for releasing Auto Rickshaw bearing registration
No.MP-54-R-0795 has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is registered
owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.MP-54-R-0795. Aforesaid
vehicle has been allegedly seized by the police in Crime No.396 of 2025
under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. On above grounds, it is urged that order
passed by the trial Court be set aside and vehicle MP-54-R-0795 be released
and given on Supurdagi.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the
application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered rival
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
2 MCRC-47720-2025
submissions made hereinabove and has also gone through the record of the
case.
Relevant provisions of law of NDPS Act:-
5. Before discussing the issues involved in the case, it would be
appropriate to refer relevant provisions of law which are as under:-
"(i). 36-C. Application of Code to proceedings before Special
Court - Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), (including the
provisions as to bail and bonds) shall apply to the proceedings
before a Special Court and for the purpose of the said provisions,
the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions and
the person conducting a prosecution before a „Special Court‟ shall
be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.
(ii) 51. Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to
apply to warrants, arrests, searches and seizures.- The provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply,
in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act, all the warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures
made under this Act.
(iii). 52-A(1). Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances:-
1 .The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous
nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper
storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or
conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or
conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic
substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which
shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such
officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to
time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter
specified.
(iv). 60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
3 MCRC-47720-2025
conveyances to confiscation.
(1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been
committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled
substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials,
apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which
such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation.
(2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance for controlled
substances) lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported
inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured,
possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to,
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance for controlled
substances] which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1)
and there receptacles, packages and coverings in which any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance for controlled
substances), materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation
under sub-section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of
such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to
confiscation.
(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug
or psychotropic substance for controlled substances), or any article
liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall
be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or
conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or
connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-
in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had
taken all reasonable precautions against such use.
(v) 63. Procedure in making confiscations :-
(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is
convicted or acquitted or discharged, the cour shall decide whether
any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation
under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and, if it decides that
the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.
(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be
liable to confiscation under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section
62, but the person who committed the offence in connection
therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
4 MCRC-47720-2025
into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation
accordingly:
Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall
be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or
without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and
the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim:
Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a
narcotic drug psychotropic substance, [controlled substance,] the
opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and
natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for
the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and
the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be
practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale."
6. Thus, Section 60 of NDPS Act provides for confiscation of vehicle
seized in commission of the offence punishable under the provisions of the
NDPS Act. Section 60 of NDPS Act does not provide for confiscation of any
vehicle immediately after its seizure. Confiscation is a separate procedure
unconnected with conviction, acquittal, or discharge of the accused. It is only
satisfaction of the court trying an offence under the Act, to decide as to
whether the vehicle is liable to be confiscated or not. A detailed procedure
for making confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act has been
provided in Section 63 of NDPS Act.
7. As such, by virtue of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, any conveyance
used for commission of offence is liable to confiscation in accordance with
Section 63 of the NDPS Act after hearing the person who may claim any
right thereto and considering the evidence, if any, which he may produce in
support of the claim and confiscation order can be made only at the end of
the trial. Neither of the said provisions (Section 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
5 MCRC-47720-2025
contained in the Act prohibits/bars trial Court to make an order for proper
custody of such a conveyance pending trial.
8. By virtue of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been made applicable in so far as
they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, to searches and
seizures made under the Act. Since the provision contained in Section
451/457 of the Cr.P.C., providing provision for interim custody, in so far as
it relates to passing of order for proper custody of conveyance pending
conclusion of trial, is not inconsistent with any of the provisions including
Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, in appropriate cases, order for
release of conveyance used for carrying narcotic drugs pending conclusion
of trial can be passed under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Further, vide Amendment Act No.2 to 1989, the NDPS Act was
amended and Section 36-C was inserted in the Act. By virtue of Section 36-
C of the NDPS Act, "Save as otherwise provided in this Act", the provisions
of the Cr.P.C. have been made applicable to the Special Court constituted
under the provisions of the NDPS Act by Amendment Act No.2 of 1989 with
effect from 29.5.1989. "Save as otherwise provided in the Act" employed in
Section 36-C of the NDPS Act, is indicative of the fact that unless, either
expressly or impliedly, operation/application of any provisions contained in
Cr.P.C. stands excluded to NDPS Act, including any provision of Cr.P.C.,
which is contrary/inconsistent with provision of NDPS Act, remaining
provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceeding under NDPS Act. Hence,
once the Cr.P.C. has been made applicable, the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
6 MCRC-47720-2025
contained in Sections 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. would automatically be
attracted. As such, with effect from 29.5.1989, the Cr.P.C. as a whole,
subject to the exception carved out as noticed herein-above, has been made
applicable to the proceeding before the Special Court constituted under
NDPS Act and therefore application under Section 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C.
for interim custody of the vehicle seized for commission of offence
punishable under the NDPS Act would be maintainable and the Special
Judge, NDPS Act is empowered to consider the application under Section
451/457 of the Cr.P.C. on merits.
10. Since the provisions of the Cr.P.C., including Section 451/457,
have been expressly made applicable by virtue of Section 36-C/51 of the
NDPS Act to the proceedings before the Special Court (NDPS) and there is
no express bar contained in the NDPS Act for grant of interim custody,
therefore, merely on the ground that the vehicle is liable to confiscation
under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be held that once the vehicle is
seized for commission of offence under the NDPS Act, interim custody
cannot be granted, as jurisdiction of criminal court has to be construed
strictly unless expressly excluded.
11. There is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the
trial Court to release the vehicle on interim custody. It has been held by this
Court in the case of Pandurang Kadam vs State of M.P., 2005 (2) ANJ MP
351 , that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated
under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it may be released on interim custody in
appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be denied to the owner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
7 MCRC-47720-2025
of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to be confiscated under Section 60
of the NDPS Act.
12. So far as submissions of learned counsel for the respondent/State
with respect to applicability of 16 to 23 of Rules 2022 are concerned, perusal
of aforesaid rules clearly reveals that they also deals with "disposal" of
conveyances seized under the NDPS Act. Aforesaid rules do not deal with
confiscation of conveyances seized under the NDPS Act. "Confiscation" and
"Disposal" are not one and the same. Sections 60 and 63 of NDPS Act deals
with confiscation of vehicles used for commission of offence under the
NDPS Act and Section 63 of NDPS Act provides for procedure for
confiscation of any such vehicle. In Rules 16 to 23 of Rules 2022, there is no
reference or mention of Sections 60 and 63 of NDPS Act. Further, aforesaid
rules 2022 do not prohibit or bar Special Court constituted under NDPS Act
to release/give vehicle on interim supurdagi during pendency of trial. Hence,
in this Courts‟ considered opinion, rules 16 to 23 of Rules 2022 cannot be
interpreted/construed so as to mean that trial Court under NDPS Act is not
empowered to release/give vehicle on interim supurgadi. In this courts‟
opinion, harmonious interpretation of Sections 60 and 63 of NDPS Act and
Rule 16 to 23 of Rules 2022 would be that whenever Special Court
constituted under NDPS Act confiscates the conveyance in accordance with
Section 60 and 63 of NDPS Act, thereafter such vehicle would be disposed
of by drug disposal committee as per Rules 2022.
13. Recently Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of
Assam, 2025 SCC Online SC 40 has examined the issue in detail and has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
8 MCRC-47720-2025
laid down in as under:-
COURT'S REASONING
NO SPECIFIC BAR/RESTIRICTION UNDER THE NDPS ACT
FOR RELEASE IN THE INTERIM OF ANY SEIZED
VEHICLE.
"19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having examined the issue at hand, this Court finds that
different Courts have taken divergent views with regard
to interim release of conveyances during the pendency
of the trial in NDPS cases. While the courts in cases
referred to by learned counsel for the Respondent-State
of Assam have not released the vehicles in the interim
during NDPS trial, yet in General Insurance Council &
Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 6 SCC 768;
Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder vs. State of Punjab, 2016
SCC OnLine P&H 16026; Tej Singh vs. State of
Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4679; Shams Tavrej
vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1154;
Manakram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Rev.
2421/2021; Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRR-
1208-2018 (O&M); Kawal Jeet Kaur vs. State of
Karnataka, 2024:KHC-K:5691 and Bhagirath vs. State
of Rajasthan, 2024: RJ-JD:36868, the Courts have
directed release of the vehicles in the interim in NDPS
cases.
20. The judgements of this Court are confined to their
facts or in the context of the expression „owner‟ and do
not lay down any general proposition of law.
Consequently,the issue would have to be examined on
first principles.
21. Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of
the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by
the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the
accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further,
even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is
liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of
hearing to the person who may claim any right to the
seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
9 MCRC-47720-2025
However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation
if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the
vehicle was used by the accused person without the
owner‟s knowledge or connivance and that he had
taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the
seized vehicle by the accused person.
22. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no
specific bar/ restriction under the provisions of the
NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for
transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in
the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.
23. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS
Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court
can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and
457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle
pending final decision of the criminal case.
Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to
release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power
would have to be exercised in accordance with law in
the facts and circumstances of each case.
COURTS WILL LEAN AGAINST ANY
CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD PRODUCE AN
ABSURD OR UNJUST RESULT.
24. It is trite law that the more absurd a suggested
conclusion of construction is, the more the court will
lean against that conclusion. That is ordinarily so
whether one is construing a contract or a statute. [See:
Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ.
223].
25. The presumption against absurdity is found in the
brief observation of Lord Saville agreeing with his
colleagues in the case of Noone [R (on the application
of Noone) v. Governor of HMP Drake Hall [2010]
UKSC 30]. Lord Saville says simply:
"I would allow this appeal. For the reasons
given by Lord Phillips and Lord Mance, I
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
10 MCRC-47720-2025
have no doubt that by one route or another
the legislation must be construed so as to
avoid what would otherwise produce
irrational and indefensible results that
Parliament could not have intended"
26. If the respondent-State‟s interpretation is accepted,
then in a case where an accused is arrested carrying
heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private
ship without the knowledge and consent of the
management and staff of the private plan or bus or ship,
the plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial
is over!
27. Though the risk of misuse by the accused or third
party of the same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled
out, yet the Courts do not take coercive action on the
basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical situation.
28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of
material evidence that may be required for inspection to
substantiate the prosecution‟s case, yet the said
requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while
releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdagi like
videography and still photographs to be authenticated
by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and
accused by signing the said inventory as well as
restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle.
BROADLY SPEAKING THERE ARE FOUR
SCENARIOS
2 9 . Though seizure of drugs/substances from
conveyances can take place in a number of situations,
yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which
the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance.
Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person
from whom the possession of contraband
drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the
contraband is recovered from the possession of the
agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by
the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
11 MCRC-47720-2025
by the accused and contraband is recovered from such
stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized
/ recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without
consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by
the police that the contraband was stored and
transported in the vehicle with the owner‟s knowledge
and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of
the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be
arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario,
the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be
arrayed as an accused.
30. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not
to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case.
Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that
the vehicle may not be released on supurdagi till reverse
burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner.
However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no
allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the
owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be
released in the interim on supurdagi subject to the
owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the
vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he
would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the
Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of
the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.
31. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion
should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it
will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view,
if the facts of the case so warrant.
SUPREME COURT IN SIMILAR FACTS IN
SAINABA VS. STATE OF KERALA AND
ANOTHER HAS RELEASED THE VEHICLE
3 2 . In the present case, this Court finds that after
conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet has been
filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi
Anglong. In the said charge sheet, neither the owner of
the Vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an
accused. Only a third-party occupant has been arrayed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
12 MCRC-47720-2025
as an accused. The police after investigation has not
found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle,
has allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/
substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he
or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions
against such use. Consequently, the conveyance is
entitled to be released on supurdagi.
33. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in
Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1784 has held as under:-
"6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as
per Section 36-C read with Section 51 of the
NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would
be applicable for proceedings by a Special
Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has
an inbuilt provision to impose any specific
condition on the appellant while releasing the
vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the
registered owner of the vehicle but had not
participated in the offence as alleged by the
prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged
transaction.
7. Learned counsel seeks to rely on the
judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10
SCC 283 opining that it is no use to keep
such seized vehicles at police station for a
long period and it is open to the Magistrate to
pass appropriate orders immediately by
taking a bond and a guarantee as well as
security for return of the said vehicle, if
required at any point of time.
8. On hearing learned counsel for parties and
in the conspectus of the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the legal
provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the
view that this is an appropriate case for
release of the vehicle on terms and conditions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
13 MCRC-47720-2025
to be determined by the Special Court.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving
parties to bear their own costs."
IF THE VEHICLE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS KEPT
IN THE CUSTODY OF POLICE TILL THE TRIAL IS
OVER, IT WILL SERVE NO PURPOSE
34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in
the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of
police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This
Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police
custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the
Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted
and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will
only reduce.
3 5 . On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is
released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who
would be able to earn his livelihood), to the
bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed
by it) and to the society at large (as an additional
vehicle would be available for transportation of goods).
14. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat, 2002(10) SCC 283 has laid down parameters for considering the
application for interim custody expeditiously and judiciously so that the
owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by
its misappropriation and court or the police would not be required to keep the
vehicle in safe custody. It was observed as under:-
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be
exercised expeditiously and judiciously. it would serve various
purposes, namely:-
1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining
unused or by its misappropriation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
14 MCRC-47720-2025
2. court or the police would not be required to keep the vehicle in
safe custody;
3. if the proper panchanama before handing over possession of
article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its
production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence
could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in
detail; and
4. this jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be
exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of
tampering with the articles."
15. Thus, from discussion in the forgoing paras and having regard to
relevant legal provisions as well as pronouncements of Hon‟ble Apex Court
as well as Coordinate Bench of this court, this court is of the opinion that
there is no such bar/prohibition under NDPS Act/Rules 2022 that Special
Court constituted under NDPS Act, during pendency of trial, cannot
release/give conveyance seized under the NDPS Act on interim
custody/Supurdagi. Hence, Special Court under NDPS Act, after having
regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, has jurisdiction to
release conveyance seized under the NDPS act on interim custody/supurdagi
during pendency of the trial.
Final Conclusions:-
16. So far as facts of present case are concerned, in the instant case,
Auto Rickshaw number MP-54-R-0795 has been seized under NDPS Act on
the ground that the vehicle was being used for transportation of contraband.
This court has examined record of the case and there is nothing on record as
such so as to justify not to give vehicle on interim supurdagi during
pendency of the trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
15 MCRC-47720-2025
17. Accordingly, the present M.Cr.C. in respect of seized Auto
Rickshaw number MP-54-R-0795 is allowed and the impugned order dated
08.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Katni in SC NDPS
No.52/2025 is set aside and it is directed that Auto Rickshaw number MP-
54-R-0795 be released on interim supurdagi/custody till the conclusion of
trial on the following terms and conditions :-
1. The applicant shall furnish Supurdiginama of a sum of
Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) alongwith a
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
releasing the vehicle in question;
2. The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall
produce the vehicle in question on his own expenses as and when
required during the trial;
3. The applicant shall not alienate the same and shall not use such
vehicle for any unlawful purpose during pendency of the case;
4. An undertaking shall also be given by the applicant that
condition of the vehicle in question shall not be changed or altered
in any manner whatsoever;
5. In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the
applicant shall produce the vehicle positively for confiscation.
18. It is further directed that before releasing the vehicle on interim
custody of the applicant, the S.H.O. of concerning police station shall get all
the papers of vehicle from registered owner and shall verify the same and
will also get video and still photographs of 18 x 12 inches of the concerned
vehicle taken from all sides and also the photographs showing engine
number and chassis number. Such papers and photographs etc. shall be
authenticated by Investigating Officer and owner/accused and they shall be
filed in the trial Court to be kept along with the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54759
16 MCRC-47720-2025
19. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Hashmi
