Disposed¶27

Vishal @ Vishu v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Feb 2026CRM-M/33722/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M No.33722 of 2024, decided 13.02.2026; Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.; release of seized currency Rs.17 lakhs alleged as drug money; FIR No.54 dated 16.04.2018, PS Sadar Dhuri; Sections 21, 22, 29 NDPS Act; acquittal order dated 04.10.2023; no State appeal against acquittal; trial Court para 53 finding amount not drug money; quashing of Special Court Sangrur order dated 21.05.2024 in CRM-135-2024; direction to SHO/trial Court to release amount; petitioner separately convicted under Excise Act, appeal pending.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 held unsustainable and quashed, and the learned trial Court concerned directed to release the amount of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner to its satisfaction, in accordance with law. ¶27

Vishal @ Vishu Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 of the Special Court, Sangrur dismissing the petitioner's application for release of the seized Rs.17 lakhs (taken to be drug money) is sustainable despite the petitioner's acquittal dated 04.10.2023 and the absence of any appeal by the State, and whether the amount ought to be released to the petitioner.

¶16

Court's answer

The learned trial Court had given a specific finding that the money recovered was not the drug money.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since admittedly no appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal order of the petitioner dated 04.10.2023, the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

¶26

Key takeaways

The learned trial Court concerned is directed to release the amount of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner to its satisfaction, in accordance with law.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Rajesh Bhardwaj, J., oral order) quashed the order dated 21.05.2024 of the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur (in CRM-135-2024) dismissing the petitioner's application for release of currency notes of Rs.17 lakhs seized during prosecution in FIR No.54 dated 16.04.2018, Police Station Sadar Dhuri, under Sections 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Act. Relying on the trial Court's acquittal of the petitioner vide order dated 04.10.2023, the specific finding in para No.53 thereof that the recovered amount was not drug money, and the fact that the State filed no appeal against the acquittal, the Court held the impugned order unsustainable, quashed it, and directed the trial Court to release Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner to its satisfaction in accordance with law. The petitioner stands convicted under the Excise Act (02 years RI) with appeal pending, which did not bar the release direction.

¶1

CRM-M No.33722 of 2024

¶2

-1-

¶3

236

¶4

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M No.33722 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.02.2026

Vishal @ Vishu

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶12

¶13

Present: Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Vrinda Katoch, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. *******

¶15

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Present petition has been filed praying for setting aside/quashing of impugned order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur in case CRM-135-2024 arising out of FIR No.54, dated 16.04.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, under Sections 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Act, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to SHO of concerned police station to release the currency notes of sum of Rs.17 lakhs was dismissed. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondent/SHO of police station concerned for releasing the amount of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner.

¶17

RITTU 2026.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M No.33722 of 2024 -2-

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was prosecuted in case bearing FIR No.54, dated 16.04.2018, under Sections 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri. He has submitted that the petitioner was prosecuted on the allegation of recovery for the offences under the provisions of NDPS Act and the Excise Act. He has submitted that the amount of Rs.17 lakhs was also recovered, which was taken to be the drug money, however, on conclusion of the trial, the charges against the petitioner were not substantiated and thus, the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.10.2023. He has submitted that after his acquittal, the State never preferred any appeal against the acquittal order of the petitioner dated 04.10.2023. He has submitted that the petitioner filed an application for the release of the amount of Rs.17 lakhs, which was confiscated on the allegation that the recovered amount was drug money, however the learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur has observed that the learned trial Court in its order dated 04.10.2023 had specifically given the findings in para No.53 that the prosecution has failed to prove that the amount of Rs.17 lakhs recovered was the drug money and the same be released as per rules after the period of expiry of appeal or revision, if any, and thus, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 21.05.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges under the NDPS Act, however, he was convicted under the Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 02 years and the appeal has been

¶21

RITTU 2026.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M No.33722 of 2024 -3-

¶23

preferred against the same by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

This Court finds that the specific finding has been given by the learned trial Court that the money recovered was not the drug money.

¶26

Admittedly, there is no appeal filed by the State against the acquittal order of the petitioner dated 04.10.2023 and thus, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 21.05.2024, being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be quashed.

¶27

Hence, the present petition is disposed of. The learned trial Court concerned is directed to release the amount of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner to its satisfaction, in accordance with law.

¶28

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 13.02.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

RITTU 2026.02.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vishal @ Vishu v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal @ Vishu v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Devi Vs State of Punjab

Paramjeet Singh @ Ghon Vs State of Punjab

Kaka Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohsin Vs State of Haryana

Babita Rani Alias Babbu and Another Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Kumar Khatpal and Another Vs State of Punjab