Order of freezing and seizure of properties under NDPS - When such an order can be challenged.
Calcutta High Court Dismisses Premature Petition Against Property Seizure in NDPS Case. Petition challenging the freezing of assets under NDPS Act dismissed; Court emphasizes procedural adherence and applicability of statutory provisions.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 22, 2025, the Calcutta High Court, presided by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, dismissed the writ petition filed by Safik Laskar and others against the State of West Bengal concerning the freezing and seizure of properties under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The petitioners had contested the order dated August 25, 2025, by the Officer-in-Charge of Jibantala Police Station and a subsequent notice dated August 26, 2025, issued by the Competent Authority and Administrator, Kolkata.
The petitioners argued that the order to freeze their properties, supposedly acquired illegally, was based on inadmissible evidence, specifically the statement of a co-accused. They contended that the prescribed punishment under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, related to the possession of 10 grams of heroin, did not warrant the application of Section 68-A(2)(cc) of the Act, which pertains to offences punishable by a term of ten years or more. The petitioners also challenged the intimation issued under Section 68-F(2) of the NDPS Act, alleging it was a premature approach to forfeiture proceedings.
The court, however, upheld the interpretation of Section 21(b) as "10 years or less," as established by the Supreme Court in Rajiv Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi). It also held that the provisions of Section 68-A(2)(cc) are applicable, thus justifying the financial investigation. The court ruled that the petition was premature, as the petitioners had confused the intimation under Section 68-F(2) with a forfeiture notice under Section 68-H, which involves different procedural requirements.
The court also addressed the procedural aspects, emphasizing that the intimation under Section 68-F(2) is distinct from a forfeiture notice under Section 68-H, which requires specific procedural formalities. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the challenge was premature, as the procedural steps under the NDPS Act had not yet reached the forfeiture stage.
The judgment underscores the strict interpretation of the NDPS Act's provisions, especially concerning the linkage between the property subject to forfeiture and the income derived from illegal activities. The court highlighted the importance of following the statutory requirements for initiating a valid proceeding under Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act, which deals with the forfeiture of property.
Bottom Line:
Freezing and seizure of properties under Section 68-F (1) read with Section 68-E - Petitioners challenged the order alleging inadmissibility of evidence and prescribed punishment under Section 21(b) - Court held provisions of Section 68-A (2)(cc) applicable and financial investigation justified - Petition dismissed as premature with reference to procedural formalities under Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 68-F(1), 68-E, 68-A(2)(cc), 21(b), 68-F(2), 68-H, 68-G, 68-I, 68-J of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
