The High Court · 2025

Order

Writ Petition No.298 of 2o25 Assaiting the legal validity of or< ler No. 182/Sl'lR I CYB I 2024, F.No.oCA/MDS I 13 I 2021 NDPS, dated 2O.O3.2O2+ pa.srsed by respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Sectior 6BF(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Pr,,ychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'IJDPS Act') confirming tht' order passed by respondent No.3 dated

20.O2.2021, the, present writ petition is filed. The relie f prayed in this u,rit pet.itio r is to quash the freezing order of the r-espondent No.2 date,1 20 .C3 .2024 and consequently permit th r petitioner and his fami1,r, rnembers to deal rvith sale transaction s,/ operation of bank acLrounts in respect of all their movable ald immovable properties. FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. Facts gir.ing rise to file this writ petition as s1 ated in the affidavit alc tlrelt on 25.12.2023, respondent No.3/ [r'rspector of Police, S1-r:r<1nzr11ar Police Station has registered a crime against the petitron,:r rn Cr.No.894 of 2023 for the alleged offe nces under Section 8tC) r/n. 22(Cl arrd 29 of NDPS Act on the allegations that there r'rras a search and seizure of trvo (2) KGs of Alprazolam 2 r[vs(, J substance from a residential building by name ,,sakkubai Nilayam", Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District. It is submitted that the said crime is at investigation stage only and no final report has been filed so far and that on the communication of registration of the said crime against the petitioner and others, their movable and immovable properties enlisted in the present impugned order of seizure are frozen- on the basis of 'reasons to believe'.

3. It is submitted that the Inspector of Shadnagar Police Station (Empowered Officer) in his order dated 2O.O2.2O24 as regards 'reasons to believe' submits that Person Affected (PA.1) is an Excise Constable and PA.2 (i.e., the petitioner) were involved 1n similar drug trafficking case in Cr.No.1386 of 2O23 under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act within the limits of Gachibowli Police Station and since the petitioner had no source of income to acquire the frozen movable and immovable property and also since PA.4 (wife of PA.2) and PA.6 (son of PA.2) has no source of income, tlne frozen properties (movable and immovabie) were presumed to have been acquired from illicit trade of narcotic drugs. The petitioner's further case is that though he has filed a reply dated | 7 .O3 .2024 to the show cause notice dated J NVSI', J w.P No.29a of 202s

23.O2.2Oi1,1 issucd by respondent No.2, the samc htLs not been considered anrl the freezing order dated 20 .O2.2O2,.1 has been

confirmecl by r:spondent No.2 uide order dated 20.01i.2024. The relevant preraglraph No. 10, records the findings u,hich are extracted herelu-rder for reference: "a) rt is ruot in dispute that the accused per;ons haue contn'titted offence punishable tuith rigo "ous impti:;onrt.ent for a period nol less than 1 0 gears and tuhiL:h. mag extend to 2O gears and according t() the inuestigo.tirtg officer the ctccused haue acquirea the protr)etlie -i out of tainted income of Narcotic D|ugs. This alLegation of the inuestigating Officer is p,i7no facie '=uiaent from the fact that the accused ltau z no source o I income or inadequate income to be creciitu,torthg enough to acquire the impuoned propertie':; in the first place. Thus the inuestigt.,,tion oflFicer a|.enpted to establish nexus betueen ,llicit inconte c'J' t.he accused and the propefties LrcLd ir the narr:.e of ,he associates or their relatiues. On co.eful peruLsal o.f the documents and mateial ort file, t am inclirted to belieue that the propetlies accquired b1; the accttsed. ttre attibutable to their income, earnint,s or ossr:ts cLeiued from the sale proceeds or narcotic druct s. F'c,llowing analg sis on the acquisition ol the pro?)e4ie:; bg the accused uis-a uis their source of income ut r-ll sltotu the reasons for belieue... . 4 l{vSK. J W,P.No.29a of2O25

11.....

12.....

13.....

14.....

15.....

16. ....

17..... 70

19. After going through the inuestigation carried out bg the empou,tered officer and also on the basis of mateial on record, I am satisfied that the mouable and immouable properlies in table A, B and C of para 4 as explained aboue, are 'illegallg acquired properties' in terms of clause G of Section 68B of the Act and the same are likety to be concealed, transferred or dealt uith in a manner uLtich will result in frustrating the proceedings under the Act. Accordinglg, I pass the follotuing order: ORD.ER 20. Notu, therefore I the Commissioner/ Competent Authoritg and Administrator, (SAFEM(FOP)A & NDPSA), in exercise of pouters conferred on me, under Section 6BF(2) of the NDPS Act, hereby confirm the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 passed bg the SLtri K.Pratap Lingam, Inspector, Shadnagar Police Station and direct that (i)the immouable properties in the form of house sites and agricultural lands held by PA.2 (uide Dot.lVos.So26/2019, 213/2020, 4707/2022 \ ) NVSI(, J w,P No-294 of 2025 [mortqacred document in respect of sale dLzeds 360/'.2O19, 213/2020, 4707/2022 [mortg'qed doc;Lrnen-l in respect of sale deeds 36a/ 2()21 & 361/' -20:?tl, 17309/2022, and 2589/2023), PA.4 (uide Dcr'.Ncts.474B/ 2O20, 4753/202O, 4747/ 2020, 4826/ 2022), and PA.6 Doc l\'os 26668/2018, 24805/2018, 1328/2018, 7884,/2O18, 8292/2019, 13116/2019, 2130.3/2)19, 13117/2019 and 22BB/202 1). as men-tioneC in the Table A of para 4 aboue (i, mot,ctble propeftg of uehicle beaing Regn.No.Tt|-17 M-0112 held bg PA.5, as mentioned in Table B oJ' para 4 eboue and (iii) ntouable propefties of c"edit bcLlonce:; auailable in the SBI Bank Acc cunt No.rj2'35(;918333 held by PA. 1, SB1 Bank A/c,N'os t;2182623577, and 32975182574 heltl bg PA.)2. SBI Baruk A/c.No.62256245608 held by ,DA.3 and :jBi Bank A/c.No.52182608093 held by ,DA.4 incht d-inq accretions thereto, as mentioned in the Table C tJ para 4 aboue, shall not be trctnsfe'red, dispto.essl o1, alienated or other-tuise dealt t uith, tuithout tty prior permission. 2 1 . 'l'his order passed bg the Compt:tent Autltcitll under Section 6BF(2) of the NDpS Act, is a conJirmatton of the seizure/ freezing order issueltl by the Empctuered Offtcer, under Section 6BF(1) oj- the NDPS Act, This order places a temporary restrai,.t on the accu-:;ed person or the persons affected, -|rom. conc-.e tlirt.T or transferring or d-ealing witlt tlrc iLlerrallg 6 I\II'SR, J acquired propertA, in ang manner, under Chapter VA of tlrc NDPS Act, 1985. The empowered officer mag keep track of the ciminal proceedings initiated against the accused person and in the euent of conuiction with impisonment for a term of ten gears or more, immediatelg reporl such conuiciion, to this Office, for initiating further action for forfeiture of illegallg acquired propertA, under Section 68H of the NDPS Act. On the other hand, if the accused person is acquitted and no appeal is preferred against the acquittal, the empoutered officer, may seek release of the restraint on the illegally ocquired property or assels under Section 68-2 of the NDPS Act.

22. In the Bank account statements, many deposit and transfer entries are found and therefore the Inuestigating Olficer mag further examine the origin/ destination of JTotu of moneg and inuestigate properties if ang, for legal action.

23. Ang officer or anA person affected, if aggrieued bg this order made under Section 6BF(2)' mag within 45 dags from the date on u.thich tlrc order is serued on the person affected, appeal to the Appeltate Tibunal, 4th J7oor, Lok Nayak Bhauan, Khan Market, Neut Delhi - 110 003." Questioning the said confirmatory order dated 20.O3.2024, the present writ petition is filed. 1

4. Mr.'Veclula Venkatramana, learned senior cout.rsel for the petitroner has filed a synopsis stating that on '.>'5'12'2023 respondert No,3/lnspector of Police, Shadnagar PolLce Station had regisr,erec a crime against the petitioner in CI 'No'894 of 2023 for lhe alleged offences under Section B(C) r/u 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act. The allegations raised in the said crirne are that (2) Two K(ir; ol Alprazolam in colour packets rvas cor tained in a car of Golla Flamesh (PA. 1) near the compound o Sakkubai Nilayam. (ln 12.12.2023, Gachibowli Police S .ation has registerecl F IR l''1o. 1386 of 2023 against petitioner (A.7 in the said Crime) u,hereirr the allegation is that 17 KGs of Alprrzolam was agreed to t,e stld to the petitioner and the money uill be given later. A ch;rrge sheet has been filed before I Additio nal District Judge, L.B.Nzr11ar. It is submitted that in both the :rimes it is seen that therc is no recovery of Alprazolam either frr''m the body or from the hc trse of the petitioner. Thereaft er , on 20.O2.2024 , the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar has passed fre'ezing order alLeging that rrtovable and immovable propertres acqr rtred by the petitioner are tainted through illega1 income b5 selling of Alprazolam . On 20 .O3 .2024, the competent att l.hority i.e. , respondent No.2 has passed the confirmatory orde: of freezing order date<1 2C.O2.2024 under Section 6BF(2) of NDP|I Act. I \ _..u 8 w.P,No.29A of 2(]25

5. In the grounds raised in the writ petition, it is urged that the freezing order passed by investigating officer ald the confirmation of the same by respondent No.2 is illegal arrd arbitrary and ultra virus to the provisions of NDpS Act, since the investigation is still at the crime stage and no charge sheet has been filed so far by respondent No.3/police. That the recovery of 2 KGs of Alprazolam from the residential house ca,not formulate ' a justifiable reason for presuming that all the immovable and movable property of the petitioner and his family members were brought by illicit money acquired by drug trafficking. That the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 being a quasi_judicial authority, is supposed to record adequate reasons while passing the order of the confirmation of the seizure and freezing order passed by the investigating officer. It is further urged that even if the offence registered against the petitioner by Gachibowli police station is of the year 2023, there is no justification to draw a presumption that the lands, houses and bank accounts of the petitioner are all acquired by the income derived from drug trafficking so as to attract exercising the power under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act. I 9 N1,SI(, J W,P,No.29a ol2025

6. 'llLis Court in I.A.No.2 of 2025 uide order dated

06.01.2025 has temporarily suspended the impugnt'd order by rel\.ing orL the: judgment of the Aslam Mohammad Merchant (supra). COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENT NO.3:

7. A courLter affidavit has been filed by Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station i.e., respondent No.3 helein stating that on 25.12.t'.O23 at about 9.00 AM, the Woman Sr.rb Inspector of Police, PS Shadnagar, received credible inlormatrcn that one pe rson u.as r lLegally selling alprazolam and artot -rer person purchasing the same at "Sakkubai Nilayam", near Akula Mallesham Fr-Lnction Hall, New City Colony, Pz:rigi Road, Shadnagar. Ra.nga Reddy District and made a GD entry and proceed eci to tlie said place along with staff an d panc r rvitnesses and at abor-rt 10.00 AM, found a person coming tou,ards the car from the :cmprund of the said mentioned "Sakku R ri Nilayam" arcl rvhrle bolh rvere discussing, immediately she alo-rg with the team caught hold of them and seized four bags from r re hartds of one Golla li:am:sh (A2), and had found white colour pou,der ald on r'r,eighin51, frtund it to be two KGs of Alprazolam. Or. enquiry, it rvas reve:rled that the said contraband was purcha.sed by A 1 l0 ItwSI! J from one Vittal Goud (A2) and sold it to one G.Venkataiah (petitioner herein and others). It is stated that four months ago Accused No.l purchased 10 KGs of Alprazolarn from Accused No.2 and sold the same to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the Sub-lnspector seized lwo KGs o[ Alprazolam along wit h car, and brought the accused persons along with the seized property to the Shadnagar Police Station and lodged a report. Based on the said report, the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar police Station lodged a report in Cr.No.894 of 2023 for the offence under Section B(c) read witln 22(c) of NDPS Act. The petitioner is Accused No.3 in the said Crime.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has i1lega1ly acquired several assets in the name of his family members in contravention to Section 6BC of NDPS Act and the assets are in the possession of his lamily members and the money in their Balk Accounts and property have been acquired illegally from the illegal act of selling alprazolatn. It is further submitted that the petitioner is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the same in any manner which will result in frustrating any proceedings relating to forfeiture of such property under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. As such respondent No.3 SHO, Shadnagar Police Station passed tlrr: lreezing Order No.182/SNR/CYBl2021 dated 2O.O2.2O24 in the above crime No.B94 12023 uncer Section 6BF(1) of Lhe I{DPS Act. The Income tax returns t led by the petitioner for lhe last 6 years were referred ir-r l.lre counter affidavit are as follows: Asse ssment vear 2022-23 4,33,090.00 Asse ssment year 2O2l-22 3,96,220.O0 Asse ssment vear 2O2O-21 4,53,870.00 Assessment year 2Ol9-2O 3,15,710.00 Assc s:;ment ,vear 20 18- 19 10,03,902.00 Assc ssment vear 2017 18 8,tl,275.OO

9. It. is f urther submitted that as per thc st:rtement of EncumbreLncc on property, the petitioner ancl f;rmily had purchasecl the 1-o1lo',r.ing properties:

1. Doc.No 5C'21tl2Ol9 dated2l.O2.2079 - Rs.3,O0,000 00

2. Doc.No 213,/'2O2O dated 18.72.2O2O - Rs.4, 18,575.(t0 pu6. 116 .1 479 I 2022 dated 23.O3.2022 Rs.9,00,000. O0 1 Doc.No 173t)q 12022 dat ed 27.l2.2O22 - Rs.10,60.o00.00

5. Doc.No 12589 /2023 dated 18.O7.2023 - Rs.4,99,800.00 (purchased in the name of the petitioner)

6. Doc.No.2t5668 l2OlB - Rs.3,67,500.00 12 NVSK, J UI.P.lYo.298 of 2025

7. Doc.No.24805/2018 - Rs.3,34,OO0.OO 8. Doc.No.1328l2Ot8 dated 11.01.2018 - Rs.4,25,000.00 9. Doc.No.7884 l2018 dated 22.05.20t8 - Rs.S,94,O00.00 10. Doc.No. 13116/2019 dated 16.07.2019 - Rs.3,00,000.OO 11. Doc.No. l3l17 /2([g dated 16.07. 2r tg -Rs.9,00,000.00

12. Doc.No.2 1303/2019 dated 03. 12.2Otg - Rs.13,05,000.O0 1 3. Doc.No. 2288 / 2O2 I dated 20.O7 .2O2 t - Rs. 74,950. O0 (Purchased in the name of petitioner's son aiz., Mr.G.Sharath, aged about 20 years, DOB: 19.f 1.1999.)

14. Doc.No.4748 /2020 dated 08.06.2020 - Rs.32,000.00

15. Doc.No.4653 /2O2O dated 08.06.2020 Rs.63,000.00

16. Doc.No.4747 /2O2O dated 08.06.2O2O - Rs.75,000.00 1 7. Doc. No.4 826 / 2022 dated 22. lO.2022 - Rs. 1 8,80,463. OO (purchased in the petitioner's wife Smt.G.Sakkubai (pA.4) Further, the details of Bank Account in the name of petitioner and in the name of his wife were furnished:

1. SBI, Shabad Branch - Rs.2,97,465.00

2. SBI, Ibrahimnagar Brarch - Rs.51,665.00 3. SBI, Shabad Branch (wife) - Rs.75,860.O0

10. It is submitted that as per the Income Tax returns from 2O1B onwards, the amount disclosed by the petitioner was about J NVSK. J W P.N..29a ot 2O2s Rs.35,00.0t1011 . u.,hereas, petitioner has purchased properties u.ortl'r Rs.95,O,1,000/ during the said period apart from cash balance ,rl al;cut Rs.4,00,00O/-. It is further subrnitted that petitioner has no other source of earning and hc is the only earning rrrcmber of his family. During the rrrvesligation it u'as revealed that the petitioner qualifies as 'persot:' within the meaning of S,-'ction 68A(2)(e) r/w 6BB(b)(ii) of NL,PS Act for proceed ir,.grs under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. The L rvestigating Officer, dur ing the course of financial investigatior-r, ic entified the abovc properties and traced it and believed that the said properties ,.r,et: acquired out of illicit trade of narcotic drugs and therefore a:,trarr:Ls Section 688(9) of NDPS Act. Based on the said fir-rdings, Lh e Investigating Officer passed the order on

20.02.20)-1 fre'ezing the above said properties. The reafter, the competenL authority issued notice on 23.O2.2024 and granted pern'rissiorr for-pcrsonal hearing on 04.O3.2024 and afforded an opportrLn.tr- of personal hearing, to file written subtnissions or repl-r.. Acc:ordi-rgll', petitioner has filed reply on 11.O3.2024 statir-rg thutr sirLce he r,vas not arrested in the case, thr: provisions of Chapter VA rf NDPS Act are not applicable to him md that he has also obtained anticipatory bail. ....? 14

11. It is further submitted that a-fter perusing the material on record and considering the petitioner's reply, the competent authority passed impugned orders on 20.O3.2024 confirming the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.3. It is further submitted that though there is an appeal provision available under NDPS Act against the impugned order, the petitioner without availing the same, had approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

12. It is further submitted that on a perusal of the petitioner Bank Account uiz., SBI, Shabad Branch bearing A/c.No.52 182623577 would reveal that there r,r,ere higher value of credits and petitioner also failed to answer as to the services rerrdered to the credits of A/c.No.32975182574. It is further submitted that the said transactions were coupled with the immovable properties worth about Rs. 1 Crore book value acquired by the petitioner with a meager disclosed income of Rs.35,00,0O0/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking and that respondent No.2 has rightly exercised the powers conferred upon him under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act. It is further submitted that on a perusal of C.No.535/ 7O2g a.t"d 27.Og.2023 of Director of Prohibition and 15 w P.No.298 of2025 Excise, the existing value of Alprazolam is Rs.10,00,000/- per kg. lt is further submitted that 0.25 mg to 0.5 mg., '\lprazolam is added t.r.r I trottle of Kalthi Kallu to make adulterr tted toddy. Each gralr c I Alprazolam is used to make arc und 2000 Adulteratc:d 'loridv bottles each of which is sold at Fr:s.20/- per bottlc. 'l'hus, r'acJ'r Rs.1O00/ invested in Alprazolarr results in return of Rs.40,000 I and not Rs.2,00,000/- as mentioned by the petitioner. lt is further submitted that in the inver;tigation, it is rcr.ealecl that petitioner was running a toddy cornpound 1n Si-radnagar an,l \v:rs procuring Alprazolam for that prrrpose and that the hveslrgatirrg Officer has not only freezed the properties of the petitioner, his lr,ife and his son but also prope rties of the other acc,Lsccl involved in the case who have i1lega1 y acquired properties in :,:rms of Clause (g) of Section 688 oI NDPS Act It is furthr:r s;ubmitted that respondent No.2 con iirmed the free zing orclcr Lssued by the Investigating Officer an d placed a temporan' restraint on the accused person from co rcealing or transferrir-rl, or dealing with the illegally acquired p roperty, 1n anl maunL:r' urder Chapter V-A of NDPS Act. I l6

13. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 informed the Empowered Officer to keep track of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and in the event of conviction with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more, immediately report such conviction to respondent No.2 Office for initiating further action for forfeiture of illegally acquired property under Section 68H of NDpS Act. With regard to Balk account statements, respondent No.2 stated that money deposits and transfer entries are found ar-rd therefore Investigating officer may further examine the origin/ destination of flow of money and investigate properties, if any, for legai action. It is further submitted that petitioner's wife and his son are non_earning members and petitioner did not state their source of income for purchasing immovable properties in their narnes.

14. It is further submitted that as per Section 6BJ of NDpS Act any property specified in the notice served under Section 6BH is not illegally acquired property sha,ll be on the person affected, as such, the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the said properties are not i11egally acquired properties. That apart, the ordeJ.of the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 dated 20.O3.2024 under the heading ,reasons to believe, also recorded l' t7 NVSI(, J W.?.No,294 of 2025 the fact PA.'[ and PA.2 i.e., petitioner are habitual offe nders who are involved in similar drug trafficking case in Cr.l'io.1386 of 2023 undcr Sr:,:tron B(c), 29 ol NDPS Act of Gachib trvli Police Station anc-l er c harge sheet was filed vide S.C. No.lz B ol 2024 pending on th(l lile of the I Additional District Sessir;ns Judge, Cyberabai at L,.8. Nagar. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER:

15. Mr.\/c:r-lula Venkatrmana, learned senior courLsel for the petitioner rvou I C subm it that though the impugncr I order is appealable uu rl er Section 68 (O) to the Appellate Tri]: unal, New De1hi, the aropr:l1ate remedy does not provide effective r-elief since the very confirnatory orders passed by respondent Nc.2 on the freezing orcl:r passed by respondent No.3 is patently illegal and u,ithout jurisdictior-r and not based on aly justifiable reasons as such the availabilit_v of alternate remedy is not a bar for maintair-Ling tl .e r'r.rrt petition as per the lau, laid do wn by the Hon'ble Srrprerr e Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation u. Registrar of '.lrademarksT. Learned senior counsr:l submits that petitr r,r:rct is accused No.3 / (PA.2) and that b1 virtue of freezing order. petitioner's Balk account, landed property were ' 1998 (B) scc L l8 freezed ald the petitioner is unable to draw money from the Balk

16. Learned senior counsel would further submit that as per Section 688 (g) of NDPS Act, illegally acquired property means - any property acquired wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets derived or obtained or attributable to the contravention of any provisions of NDpS Act ' and per Section 68tr, there should be a process of identification of i11egally acquired property by the Police Officer by duly recording reasons and conducting enquiry/ investigation/ survey. Section 6BF( 1) envisages that if the poiice officer conducting enquiry or investigation under Section 6BE, has reason to believe that property in relation to which such enquiry or investigation is being conducted or transferred resulting in frustrating proceedings relating to forfeiture of property, an order for seizing the property lfreezing the property can be passed which is to be confirmed by the competent authority within 3O days. Learned senior counsel would further submit that in the present case, the freezing order passed by the police officer of Shadnagar has not recorded any grounds for arriving that there is reason to believe that the movable and immovable properties are il1ega1ly ./ 19 w-P.No,298 o12025 acquired 1l-om :he income generated by the bu sines s of NDPS substances ar-rd they are Lkely to be concealed to avoi,l forfeiture under Section (>BH of NDPS Act. He would further srrbmit that all the mor abrr: and immovable properties \\rere acc uired long back prior to the tr'r'o crimes uiz., Shadnagar crime dated

25.12.2023 anrl Cachibowli Crime dated 12.12.202.1 as such there is no ba si s to construe that the properties r','hich were acqurred from llo1B to 2023 are illegally acquired prcperties. As such the rrrLpug;ned proceedings are not in consonanr:e with the mandatorv 'cror isions of law in terms of Section 68tr and Section 6BF of NDPS t\:t. Learned senior counsel rvotLld furt rer submit there is no alleg;ation of mixing alprazdLam with toddl' ald sale of such toddv a ed derivation of income from suc h sale of adulterated toddv. Learned senior counsel further submits that the freezing of the accounts of the petitioner brings pe titioner life to a virtua.i star cl still

17. l,earned senior counsel further submits tlLat though there is remedy of appeal available under Section 68(()) of NDPS Act, as per tht: judgment of the Hon'bie Supreme CorLrt of India in PIIR Inaent Educational Societg v. UCO Bank and others2 t 1:ou+) 6 scc -.1I 20 there are certain exception to the rule of alternate remedy being a bar for maintaining the writ petition and would refer to paragraph 37 of the said judgment which reads as under: "(il tahere the statutory authoity \"" not acted, in accordance tuith the prouisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental pinciples of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to inuoke the prouisions u_thiclt are repealed; and (iu) uhen an order has been passed in total uiolation of the pinciples of natural justice. "

18. Making lurther submissions, learned senior counsel would rely on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam Mohammad Merchan a. Cornpetent authoritgs wherein it was held that when law is stringent, the procedure laid down by the has to be scrupulously followed. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted herein for the facility of reference: " Both tLrc statutory elements, namely, ,reason to belieue' and 'recording of reasons' must be premised on the materials prod.uced before him. Such materials must haue been gathered during the inuestig ation carried .out in terms of Section 6B-E or othenttise. Indisputablg therefore, he must haue some mateials before him. If no such mateial had ' (2008x4 SCC r86 21 w.P.No,298 of 2025 been plcrred before him, he cannot initiate a proceedi.n.g. He cannot issue a show cause notice ort his ott)n ipse dixit. A rouing enquiry is not corttt:nrplLtLed tLnder the said Act as proper lies soughl 1o be forfeited must haue a direct nexus t tith tLrc p,r11 p s 7 1i. s iLle g ally acquire d. It i:; nou.t a tite laut that wheneuer a stct'ute proui.des J'or 'reason to belieue', either the r€aSOrLS shoulcl. ap9ear on the face of the notice or they rr ust be auctilal: le on the materials which had been plLt:ed before hilr,...." SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL:

19. Mr.B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Assistar:t Solicitor General o1' India appearing on behalf of respondcnt N,r.2 refuted the content ions of learned senior counsel for the per tioner and n,ouid refer to p aragraph 6 of the order dated 20 .O3.21)24 stating that, notices r',,ere issued giving an opportunity ,: f personal hearing to r-he petitioner and that via e-mai1 dated t O .03.2024 petitroner has fiied written submissions u.hich has been considered anrl no foundation was made in the grounds to the extent that thr: order of respondent No.2 is illegal. Learned Assistant Soli<ritor Ceneral rvould further submit tl-r rt order of freezing drrteC 20.O2.2024 has been commulicated by 72 Empowered Officer i.e., respondent No.3 within 48 hours to competent authority i. e., respondent No.2 as per the time prescribed under Section 6B(F) of NDpS Act and the competent authority is having jurisdiction under Section 6BD of NDpS Act to proceed as per law and under provisions of Section 6gH i.e., issuance of notice of forfeiture of property has been complied. Though respondent No.2 in his order informed petitioner that there is a provision of appeat on the person Affected to the appellate tribunal within a period of 45 days, as such the submissions of the learned senior counsei for the petitioner that the appellate remedy does not provide effective remedy is without any basis. He would further draw attention of this Court to paragraph 5 of the order dated 2O.O3.2O24, wherein in the 'Reasons to believe', it is noticed that the competent authority, on a reasonable belief, inferred that entire assets and properties of the petitioner were acquired out of the tainted income from narcotic drugs. Learned Assistant Solicitor General would further submit that there is no material to support that the petitioner has monetary source for buying the properties mentioned in the lreezing order and as per provisions of Section 6BJ, the entire burden of proof lies on petitioner to prove that the specified properties u,ere not illegally acquired property and :) NVSK, J the same ratio is applicable in proceedings under St ction 6BF also ri herel;'/ an opportunity nras granted to the pe tit ioner as a part of natural . urstice though there is no provision fcr granting such opportuni--r' of making submissions or person:11 hearing As such thc ord,:rs passed by both the respondents alr; based on the mandat,: o1 1aw and is not an order under urjustifiable grounds SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO,3:

20. Learne d Government Pleader for Home Sri NI rhesh Raje appearing on be half of respondent No.3 also filed syr-ropsis u,ould narrate thr: secuence of facts and proceedings ar-rd srr rmits that

25.12.11,023, an FIR was registered in FIR No.B9 I of 2023 under Secl.jon 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Ac1. That the Shadnagar Poli,:e, on reliable information, visitcd pretitioner's house and apprehended PA.2 (A2) and PA.4 (A4) and ,;erzed two I(Gs of Alprazc,lam. He would further submit that pe titioner is also rnvoh,ed iri another FIR No. 1386 of 2023 of (iachibowli Police Stat.ic)n. ilyberabad Commissionerate, u.herein (7) Seven KGs of Alprazol:Lm powder as well as cash of Rs.19,00,.)00/- was seized frorn ther possession. Accused No.3 i.e., the petitioner herein u,as grtr eted rvith Anticipatory Bail ulde Crl . l). No.2 I 83 24 UI.P.No.29t 6f202s and 2186 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and furnished bail bonds on

02.o3.2024

21. The learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that on 25.12.2023, LW. 1 to LW.6 were examined and their statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.2 arrd 4 were arrested ald produced before the jurisdictional Court and the learned Magistrate sent them to judicial custody. Accused No.l arrest was regularized through PT warralt as he already 1n judicial custody in connection with Cr.No.364/2023 of Medak Town Police Station, Shadnagar. On

20.O2.2024, The Station House Officer, Shadnagar Poiice Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate proposed to respondent No.2 to freeze t|-e illegatly acquired assets and bank accounts of the petitioner and his family members under Section 6BF(1) of NDPS Act. On 23.O2.2O24, respondent No.2 issued notices to A.2, A.3, A.7 and petitioner's r.l,ife, son and Smt.Neredi Saritha grarrting an opportunity ol final hearing on 04.O3.2024.

22. The petitioner submitted a reply on 11.O3.2024 stating that since he was not arrested in the case, the provisions of Chapter VA of NDPS Act are not applicable to him. Thereafter, on 20.O3.2O24, respondent No.2 passed impugned order under 25 Section 6BF(2) of NDPS Act, 1985 confirming thc fre ezing order dated 20.02.2Cr24 passed by the Investigating Officer and stated that the irnplLlgned order is a temporary restraint o der on the accused llcrson from concealing or transferring or cealing with the illega1l1' acrluired property, in any manner undel Chapter V A of NDPS Ac: Though Respondent No.2 in the imprLgned order stated that thr accused has a right to file an appea belore the Appellate TribrLnal, New Delhi within the stipulated I,eriod of 45 dar.s. the peti ioner u,ithout filing appeal and infact alter a lapse of more than 1) months from the date of impugned order, filed tl-re prescnl lnt petition.

23. Learr ed Government Pleader would furthe:- refer to the IT rcturns lilcc by the petitioner disclosing his incor e as stated supra. It is; fu -ther concluded that the petitioner hi Ls no other source or ir-rcc,mc except selling Alprazolam and t here is no earning mcmtrer in the family. He u,ou1d further subtnrt that the Invesligating Officer revealed that the petitioner r lualilies as 'person' ur,.thirr the meaning of Section 6BA(2)(ef read u,ith 68B(b)(ii) c,f NDPS Act for proceedings under Chaprer VA of NDPS Act eLnd in the course of financial investrgation carried out b_v him under Section 6B(E) of NDPS Act identifiect the above 26 t{vsK, J properties and traced in the name of the accused and his famiiy members.

24. He would further submit that the value of properties vis-a-vis the quantity of drugs seized is irrelevant and what is crucial is "a reasonable belief' based on investigation that such properties are linked to drug trafficking activities. He would further submit that NDPS Act specifically empowers freezing ' without prior notice to prevent frustration of proceedings under Chapter VA. He would further submrt that drug trallicking proceeds are often laundered into immovable and movable assets disproportionate to any single seizure and hence the scope of freezing is necessarily broader to identify the full extent of proceeds of crime. He would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam MercLrunt u. Competent authoritg whrch is also relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Hon'Lrle Supreme Court upheld the wide powers of freezing to ensure effective forfeiture. He would submit that the present matter is at nascent stage of investigation and aly disclosure of detailed linkage between the properties and offenses at this stage may compromise ongoing efforts to identify other associates, financial trails and assets. He would further ,} 21 w. P. No-294 oa 2025 contend th at p etitioner had an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under rSection 68-0 of NDPS Act, u'hich I e has not exhausted . Th e Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Prr perty is a specializerl bocf in,ith competence to examine sur h freezing orders and di:ect invocation of writ jurisdiction bypassing statutor], :emecif is not warranted ald the writ petiljon may be dismissecl at th,: threshold. He would also submit tha NDPS Act is a special statute enacted to prevent and control illicit traffic in narcotic d:-u.gs zLr-rd its provisions including freezing of properties, are aimecl at crippling fir-rancial netuzork of tra ffickers. Interferen<:e ivit h freezing order undermines public interest in prerzenting CrlrlJ trafficking and weakens enforcemr,nt efforts. Ever-rtuallr ne rr.ould submit that since the investig rtion is at nascent starge. t his Court need not interfere at this st:Lr Je.

25. ',\/hrl: making submissions, the learned (i:vernment Pleader for- HorrLe also placed a copy of the charge-st,eet in FIR No.89.1/2C,23 cirted 25.12.2023 filed under Section 1.'3 Cr.p.C., in the Cor,Lrt of the I Additional District Sessio.rs Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. The details have been filed with Inward No.904,/2025 dated 07 .O3.2O25. 28 !ausl{, J

26. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3. perused the material placed on record. ANALYSIS:

27. The competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 in its order dated 2O.O3.2O24, based on the report of the empowered officer, during the course of financial investigation under Section 68E of NDPS Act had verified certain movable and immovable properties traced in the name of petitioner and five others (i.e., P.A. 1 to P.A.6) ald the said properties n ere reasonabiy believed to have been acquired out of illicit trade of narcotic drugs and therefore deemed to be illegally acquired properties as defined under Section 688(9) of NDPS Act

28. It is to be noted that PA-2 is the petitioner, PA 4 is the wife of PA-2 / petitioner, and PA-6 is the son of PA 2 /petitioner. Based on the investigation, the empowered officer passed the freezing order under Section 68F(1) of NDPS Act directing that the said properties shal1 not be transferred or other-wise dealt without prior permission from the empowered officer or the competent authority . In the order, details of 19 immovable .\ ,/ 29 properties ol the petitioner and his family along u,ith movables lvere annere d 29 . Respondent No-2 in his 'reasons to br'1ieve' has submitted thaL petitioner along with G.Mallaiah (l-.A. 1) u'ere habitual oflendcrs who were involved in similar drug trafficking case in Cr . No. i3B6 I 2023 under Section B (c) read u'i th Section 22(c1,29 of NDI)S Act on the file of Gachibowli Police Station. In the said order, t is further observed that on investiga tion of the empou'erecl offir:er, it is found that P.A.4 is a house wife while P.A.6 is a studr:'rt u,ho had no income source to acquir-e the said immovable procerties and thereby concluded that tht-- properties held in the narre of P.A.4 and P.A.6 are attributatrle to the income of F'.A.lt (i.e., the petitioner herein). Thereaf._er, notice dated 23.Cr2.2C,11.1 u'as issued to all the persons affe cted (pAs) through errpou't:red officer and acknowledgments wer,: taken on record b1. fixing, the personal hearing on 04.O3.2024. l,s regards, P.A.2, P A.4 ancl P.A.6 are concerned, it was reported that they were abscondinll and hence the hearing notices werc sen ed by way of affl::tu:-,r. Thereafter, the petitioner, on req uest, was granted tirnr: till 71.03.2024 for submission of repl.,, and the petitioner i;y r,i,av of e-mail dated 1O.03.2024 submittr:d u,ritten 30 w.P.No.29a of 202s submissions. The entire written submissions were made part of order dated 20.03.2024. In the written submissions petitioner relied on judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Aslam Mohq.mmad Merchant,s (cited supra) and also on the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by this Court on 28.02.2024 in Cr1.P.No.2186 of 2024 and, prayed to reject the freezing order.

30. In the reply, the petitioner submitted that for his livelihood he is doing agriculture, real-estate business and also derives rental income and that he is never into the business of toddy ald that apart from the alleged confessional statement there is no material to implicate him in the case and there is no recovery from him. 3 I . In the reply given by the petitioner, the petitioner referred to the orders passed by this Court in Crl.p.No.2186 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in the matter of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (reported in (2O2tl 4 SCCI; Sharik Khan Vs. NCB (SLP (Crl.) Dairy No.48Zg2/2O2gl dated O6.03.2024; Aslam Mohammad Merchant Vs. Competent Authority and other (reported in 2008) 14 SCC 186 ald Order passed by this \ ,/ 31 w-P,No,298 ol2O25 Court in Cr1.P. \o.12925 of 2023 dated 03.O7.2024, 'O.O1.2024 & 24.01 .2024.

32. In the rliscussions and the hndings of the I espondent No.2 in tris o'cier dated 20.03.2024, it is notecl from the statements of P.\- 1 given before the Investigating Offic:r that the PA 2/petiLione- played a role in the commission of ihe offence ald drug lraffiching, u,hich would render him as an associate of PA- 1.

33. ln tht: findings of the order of the respordent No.2 dated 20.03.2C,114. as far as the contention of the r-re-xr Ls between the impugner property and the income of PA is :oncerned, respondent No.2 relerred to the explalation insertecl by NDPS (Amdt.) Ac:t. 2C14 dated 3O.O4.2O14 below Sec.6BH, nhich is relevant: " [Extrl crnotion.-For the remoual of doubts, it is lrcrebg declared t.hot t. o case where the prouisions of Section 6BJ are appLicable. tto :totice under this section shall be inualic'merelg on the ground th.at it fails to mention the euidence relied upon or it fails to establislt a direct nerus between the propefty s:tught to be forfeited ancl ang actiuitg in contrauention of the prouis,ons of this Act.l. l ./ 32 w.P.No_29A or 202s

34. Further, respondent No.2 also relied upon the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Aslam Mohammad (supra), which reads as under: "44. We are not unmindful of the purpoft and_ object of th,e Act. Dealing in narcotics is a social euil tLnt must be curtailed, or prohibited at ang cost. Chapter VA seeks to achieue a salutarg purpose. But, it must also be borne in mind that right to hold propertg although no longer a fundamental right is stiLl a constitutional rigltt. It is a human ight. The prouisions of the Act must be interpreted in a manner so that its constitutionalitg is upheld. The ualidity of the prouisions might haue receiued constitutional protection, but tuhen stingent lauts become applicable as a resuLt tuhereof some persofts are to be depiued of his/ her ight in a propertA, scntpulous compliance of the statutory requirements is imperattue."

35. In the said order dated 20.03.2024, it is also noted that as per Section 68J of NDPS Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6BH is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected ald same ratio is applicable in proceedings under Section 68F also where the opportunity is gralted as a part of natural justice. The \ JJ w-P No.298 of2025 petitioner lrzrs g:anted with maximum possible opporttLnities and sufficient :irne to submit his reply and relevant doc uments to prove that the lrozen movable ald immovable propt rties were not acquir,:cl out of income derived from illicit trade of drrrgs and thereafter. , rd,' - under Section 68F(2) foltowing an o der under Section 68F(1) has to be passed within a period ol 30 days. Therefore, 1.he competent authority had proceeded to decide the case on thc basis of records and documents availal rle on file. Respondent N,r.2, on a careful perusal of material placed on record belie verl that the properties acquired b), th. PAs are altributabie to lherr lncome, earnings or assets derive d lrom the sale proceeds ol narcotic drugs.

36. Alter 1;oing through the investigation carrierl out by the empou,ered ofll:er and also on the basis of the m rterials on record, thr: Conrpetent Authority was satisfied that tlLe movable and immovable properties are 'illegally acquired properties' in terms of claust: (g) of Section 688 of NDPS Act ancl th: same are likely to l>e co-rcealed, transferred or dealt ri,ith in a manner which u,i1l resu lt in frustrating the proceedings und,:r Chapter VA of NDPS Ac! and thereby confirmed the freezing r;rder dated

20.02.2024 par;sed by the empowered oflicer i.e., :.espondent .\ 34 w.P.No.29a of 2O2s No.3. The order of competent authority places a temporary restraint on the persons affected (pAs), from concealing or transferring the said properties, in a manner, under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. The Empowered Olficer was directed to keep track of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and in the event of conviction with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more, immediately report such conviction to respondent No.2 Office for initiating further action for forfeiture of illegally acquired property under Section 68H of NDpS Act. On the other hand, if the person affected is acquitted and no appeal is preferred against the acquittal, the empowered officer, may seek release of the restraint on the i1lega11y acquired property under Section 682 of NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer was directed to further examine the origin/destination of flow of money and investigate properties, if any, for legal action. Accordingty, the competent authority confirmed the freezing order.

37. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 has placed a copy of FIR No.a94 12023 dated 25.12.2023 registered under Sections 22(cl arrd 29 of NDPS Act. As per Section 68J of NDPS Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 68H is not illegally acquired i5 w.P.No.29a oI2O25 propertv shall -re on the person affected. Respondent No.3, in the counter affidavit, relerred to the details of Income 'la-x returns filed by the pertitioner during the last 6 assessmert.. Jrears and also furnisher l the details of statements of encum brarrces on properties purr:hased by the petitioner and his son and also in the name ,rf h is n,ife. In the counter. the details c f th e Bank account operated by the petitioner and his u,ife and by verifying details of Income Tax returns from 20 18 onrvards u,herein an income oi l?s.!,5,00,000/- was disclosed and the pe -itioner has purchased the properties worth Rs.9 5,00,O00/ . Thc Inr-estigat.ing Officer further has filed the detailr; of several higher value <:r'edits during the last 6 years and stated that the petitioner has not given any answer as to the source rendered for those creclit-s CONCLUSION:

38. Ars ot'served by respondent No.2, petitioner appears to be habitual offender involved in drug trafficking cas,r. As far as petitioner :mcl family members purchasing propertr es prior to crime and whe ther petitioner was also involved in rrarlier such crimes and su:h properties have aly nexus to incc me derived lrom drug trafiicking is to be established by a progressive and 36 meaningful investigation and by leading proper evidence which cannot be decided on affidavits at this juncture. The petitioner as against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 had an ample opportunity to pursue the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, however, has not chosen for his own reasons. On a perusal of the confirmatory order passed by respondent No.2, it is based on "reasons to believe", the respondent No.2 on a careful anatysis of Income Tax returns of petitioner, observed that petition er lPA.2 did not report any immovable property in the ITRs fi1ed during the assessment years relevant to the financia-l years in which the said immovable properties \ rere acquired. It appears that petition er lPA.2 has returned business income to the Income Tax Department. However, neither any document nor any mention of nature of business has been made in the reply of the petitioner. Similariy, the petitioner failed to provide detaiis of his real estate business and corresponding linking credits in his bank account or investment in the immovable properties. Respondent No.2 further observed that the sale consideration was in cash, while in some cases the mode of transaction is missing from the face of such records' It is further observed that PA.4 (wife of the petitioner) has neither filed any reply nor appeared for any personal hearing, inspite of -r/ 31 t{vsK, J w .P .u o .294 ol 2O2S notice bein[] s 3rved on her through affixtures as; per the pror.isions o: Section 6BX of the NDPS Act. As such respondent No.2 held that properties held in the name of PA.4 u,ere acquired out of income rl,:rived from illicit trade of narcotic drtr].1s. Similar observation w,as rnade in the case of PA.6 (son of petit oner) who is a student and in all the sale deeds PA.6 r,vas shor,r,n ls student and sale crtrr si rl :ration was paid in cash. PA.6 has not filed any income tax retu -n and there was no submission of the petitioner representing his son, who seems to be unavailablc for lrearing.

39. l-he Psychotropic Substance Alprzl,tolam 1S included in tb<: Schedule (Clause (xxiii) of Section 2) in the list of Phyctrotropic Substances.

40. F or b,:ttg. ,rr..ciation, Section 6BJ of th.: Narcotic Drltgs artrl Phr.chotropic Substances Act, 1985 is extracted here under "68J, Burden of Proof.- In ang proceedings mder this Chapter, tL,,r: burden of prouing that any propetllt spectfied in the notice seruecl under section 6BH is not illegally acquireT property shctlL be on the person affected. " t 38 w _P.No_29a or 202s

41. As per Section 68J of NDpS Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6BH is not il1ega1ly acquired property lies on the petitioner, the petitioner failed to prove that the said properties are legally acquired properties. It is also to be noted that petitioner had not made aly serious attempt to discharge his burden of proof and explain his source of income. As such the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the said properties were not acquired illegally. It is to be noted that petitioner has not filed any repiy affidavit to the counter affidavit and is silent on this issue.

42. The impugned order only confirms the freezing order and is not a final order and only places a temporary restraint from concealing or transferring or dealing with the illegally acquired property, in any manner under Chapter VA of NDpS Act.

43. Though the freezing order r,vas passed on the basis of FIR No.B94/2O23, as per submissions of learned Government Pleader for Home, the petitioner was also involved in FIR No.l386/2O23 on the file of Gachibowli police Station and a charge" sheet was filed pending on the file of the I Additional t DistricS Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. In the charge 39 sheet date:l 1e'.08.2O24 filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that pctitioner is Accused No.7 in FIR No.1::ia6 12023. That apart for ttre present case, the petitioner has alsc bypassed the alternati.Ts :-r-'rrredy available under Section 6B(O) of NDPS Act and did not di:monstrate compelling reasons as tc rvhy the existing proces s is inadequate or would cause ,;ignificant injustice. Sincc the Charge Sheets are alreadv fl1cd in Cr.No.13B(,/2023 dated 12.12.2023 altd in the preser:t crime in Cr.No.B94i 2023 dated 25.12.2023 pending on tt e file of I Additional [tistrict and Sessions Judge, Cvbe rabad at L.B. Nagar b,r, re spondent No.3, petitioner has a remec), to prove his bona fides before the said Court.

4.1. lt is to be noted that the confirmaton, ot der dated 2O.O3.202. is r ot based on isolated incident as thc, petitioner r'r,as also irvolr,ed in both the crimes i.e. Cr.No.1386/2C23 dated

12.12.2O2i\ ar-r<l in the present crime in Cr.No.B94/21)23 dated 25 .12 .2O2:\ . ',r,LLi ch occurred within a short time soar . As such conclusions arrived at by respondent No.2 in freei,;ing order dated 20.02 2O2t4 is well founded. The petitioner in the entire affidavit has no 'r'here stated the nature of his busines,; and hor.v the said proltertics in the freezing order have been acquired. In 40 the absence of same, there is no reason to interfere with the freezing order. It is to be further noted that though there is a statutory appeal avaiiable under Section 68(0) of NDpS Act, wherein the Appellate Tribunal for lorfeited property is a specialized body with competence to examine such freezing orders, the petitioner without subjecting himself for such examination under a competent body is not entitled to approach this Court by directly invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India without exhausting such statutory remedy. The petitioner, if at all, wants to canvass the points discussed hereinabove, the same ought to have submitted before the Appellate forum. On this ground a1so, the writ petition ts not maintainable. There is nothing and no material has been filed to prove that the said properties were acquired by legal meai-rs. The Apex Court in Aslam Mohammed (supra) at paragraph 54 of the said judgment held that once show cause notice is found to be illegal, the same would vitiate all subsequent proceedings whereas in the present case, in the written instructions submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Poiice Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, dated 06.0I.2025 which has been placed before this Court by the learned Government pleader for Home, a copy of the intimation of personal hearing dated 23.02.2024 \ 4T w.P. 0.293 oI2025 (through vi d:o t:onference) on 04 .O3 .2024 (@ 12 -OO N oon under Sectron 68F of the NDPS Act, 1985, before the ( )ompetent Authoritv (S,\FItM (FOP) A & NDPSA) Chennai, ri'as in,imated to the petiticn3r Ln u,hich details of movable and immovable propertics oJ' PA - I to PA-6 were mentioned. The petii.ioner has also subm rt tecl a detailed reply on 17 .O3 .2023 . '''hereafter, respondenr- lrlo.3 has passed freezing order on 20.02.2.)21 under Section 6BF(1) read u,ith Section 6BE of Chapter V-A rf the Act, 1985 and respondcnt No.2 confirmed the said freezin.l order on 2O.O3.2O2,1 uncler 6BF(2) of the Act. The respondents have lollorved thc pro,,isrons of the NDPS Act, 1985.

45. It is further noted that as per the ri cord and submissions macie by respondents, it is reveaied that rtotice u'as issued to thc pe titioner under Section 68H and resporrdent No.2 has confir n.: ed the freezing order within 3O days As such, the saiC dccisic,n of the Hon'ble Supreme Court re1 ed by the petitioner dc,es not support the petitioner's case and or L the basis of materiaL 1r1aced, this Court is of the considered ogrinion that statutory r:ondi,ions prescribed under the Act stand s satisfied and the br,r rclen is on the petitioner to show his sou 'ce for the acquisition ,:f t re said properties and prove that th,:y are not illegally acquired properties. Respondent authorities have identified the properties and also observed that the cash/bank deposits were not properly explained by the petitioner. petitioner did not disclose the proof of agriculture income. Respondent No.2 has given sound reasons in support of his belief. As such the statutory elements namely, reasons to believe and recording of reasons are well founded.

46. ln view of al1 the observations made above and also taking into consideration the above judicial pronouncements, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 and the reiief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted and writ petition fails.

47. This Court is of the opinion that freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts infringes petitioner and his family members right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India arrd in the interest of justice, considering the bona fi.de requirements of the petitioner and his family members, this Court grants limited/conditionai access to the frozen accolrnts of the petitioner mentioned in the order dated 20.02.2024 ald as confirmed by respondent No.2 in the order 1 \ ,r' 43 W P,No.29a of 2021, dated 20.t13.2024, subject to petitioner providing J:roof of 1egal income cr,edit,; and also on the grounds of urgent re Iief however, subject 1o Tri:ri Court/Competent Court permission '.vhile dealing rvith fort hcom ing credits. The petitioner may file ar L application before the Triai Court/Competent Couft seeking fo - '"vithdrawal ol such ielgal proceeds credited in the petitioner's frr',zen account lor his lr:gitim ate livelihood and for the medical exJ:enses of his family

48. It is made clear that this order is only corrlined to the observatiirns made in confirmation order datecl 20 .O3.2024 passed br. the respondent No.2 ald shall not be conrstrued as an ) ) expressiorL on the merits of the case ald th< competent Autl-roriti or Trial Court may proceed indepr:ndently in accordance to 1au. uninfluenced by the hndings of th s Court.

49. In th e result a) the impugned order dated 20.O3.2024 pzr:;sed by respondent No.2 \\rarrantr.i no int:rference and the writ petition sl ands dismissed to that exten t; and 44 b) however, if the petitioner makes aly application for meeting his family necessities and for their livelihood and to meet medical expenses, if any, on the forthcoming credits into the Bank Accounts frozen as per order d.ated. 20.02.2024 and as confirmed by order dated 20.03.2024, ttre Competent Court/Trial Court may consider the salne and pass appropriate orders in accordalce to law' As a sequel, miscellaneous applications' if ar-ry pending' shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs' SD/.A.SRINIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR I To, //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE N'V'S (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal ) SECTION OFFICER AN KUMAR

1. ll LRCoPies 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association' Library' High Court Buildings, HYderabad.

4. One CC to M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARIMA' CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL' loPUCl

6. One CC to SRI loPUcl G.VENKATESHWARLU, CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL T.TwoCCstoGPFoRHOME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] B. Two CD CoPies W. BSR/BSK HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 CC TODAY 'a a) :) .1 til i o '4 r-:- . (,^^\, 2 3 tr!'t '.:.: 'a:r rr ..i .,1,i, zW i,r] ,. ,i, -...iiJ ORDER WP.No.298 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ). /n Ic/ \j $\{ ,L) u