Kerala High Court Quashes Police Notice to Confiscate Scooter in NDPS Case

Court Rules Lack of Evidence for Illegally Acquired Property, Declares Confiscation Notice as Abuse of Process

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has quashed a police notice that sought to confiscate a scooter belonging to Usman Kunju, under the premise that it was purchased using proceeds from narcotic dealings associated with his son. Justice V.G. Arun presided over the case and delivered the judgment on October 7, 2025, in Crl. MC No. 7306 of 2025.

The case was brought before the court by petitioners Usman Kunju and his wife, who contested the confiscation notice issued by the Inspector of Cherupulassery Police Station. The notice alleged that the scooter, registered in Usman Kunju's name, was bought with funds derived from narcotic transactions conducted by their son, who is an accused in a 2025 crime registered at the same police station under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The petitioners argued that their son was only 14 years old at the time of the scooter's purchase in 2020 and could not have acquired property illegally under the NDPS Act provisions. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mohanan M.K., emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest the scooter was linked to any illegal activity.

Justice Arun analyzed Sections 68E and 68F of the NDPS Act, which outline the conditions under which property may be seized or frozen if deemed illegally acquired. These provisions require a reason to believe, supported by concrete evidence, that the property is linked to narcotic crimes. The court held that mere assumptions without cogent materials do not suffice for such drastic actions.

Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Aslam Mohammod Merchant v. Competent Authority (2008), the judgment reiterated that a direct nexus between the property and illegal earnings is essential for forfeiture under the NDPS Act. The court found no such nexus in the current case, noting that the petitioners' son was not involved in narcotic crimes when the scooter was purchased.

Justice Arun concluded that the police's action was an abuse of process, as it lacked substantive evidence linking the scooter to illegal activities. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioners' criminal motion, thereby quashing the confiscation notice.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards and evidence-based proceedings when exercising powers under the NDPS Act, safeguarding individuals' property rights against arbitrary actions.

Bottom Line:

NDPS Act - Seizure or freezing of property - Power to seize or freeze property can be exercised only if there is reason to believe, based on inquiry, investigation, or survey, that the property is illegally acquired. The 'reason to believe' should be based on cogent materials, not mere assumptions.

Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 68E, 68F, 68B(g)

Usman Kunju v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2802001