Telangana High Court
Gundumalla Venkataiah vs The Union Of India on 21 April, 2025
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION No.298 of 2025
% Dated 21-04-2025
Between:
# Gundumalla Venkataiah
... Petitioner
and
$ The Union of India,
Represented by its Member Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Room No.46, North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 001 and others
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Vedula Venkatramana
^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma for
Central Government
Mr. Mahesh Raje, G.P. for Home
< GIST : ---
>HEAD NOTE : ---
? Cases referred: :
1. 1998 (8) SCC 1
2. (2024) 6 SCC 579
3. (2008) 14 SCC 186
NVSK, J
2 W.P.No.298 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.298 of 2025
ORDER:
Assailing the legal validity of order vide
No.182/SNR/CYB/2024, F.No.OCA/MDS/13/2024-NDPS, dated
20.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of powers
under Section 68F(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as ‘NDPS Act‘)
confirming the order passed by respondent No.3 dated
20.02.2024, the present writ petition is filed. The relief prayed in
this writ petition is to quash the freezing order of the respondent
No.2 dated 20.03.2024 and consequently permit the petitioner
and his family members to deal with sale transactions/operation
of bank accounts in respect of all their movable and immovable
properties.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Facts giving rise to file this writ petition as stated in the
affidavit are that on 25.12.2023, respondent No.3/Inspector of
Police, Shadnagar Police Station has registered a crime against
the petitioner in Cr.No.894 of 2023 for the alleged offences under
Section 8(C) r/w 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act on the allegations
that there was a search and seizure of two (2) KGs of Alprazolam
NVSK, J
3 W.P.No.298 of 2025substance 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 20.02.2024 as
regards ‘reasons to believe’ submits that Person Affected (PA.1) is
an Excise Constable and PA.2 (i.e., the petitioner) were involved
in similar drug trafficking case in Cr.No.1386 of 2023 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, the frozen properties (movable and immovable) 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 11.03.2024 to the show cause notice dated
NVSK, J
4 W.P.No.298 of 202523.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2, the same has not been
considered and the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 has been
confirmed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.03.2024. The
relevant paragraph No.10, records the findings which are
extracted hereunder for reference:
“a) It is not in dispute that the accused persons
have committed offence punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a period not less than 10 years and
which may extend to 20 years and according to the
investigating officer the accused have acquired the
properties out of tainted income of Narcotic Drugs.
This allegation of the investigating Officer is prima
facie evident from the fact that the accused have no
source of income or inadequate income to be
creditworthy enough to acquire the impugned
properties in the first place. Thus the investigation
officer attempted to establish nexus between illicit
income of the accused and the properties held in the
name of the associates or their relatives. On careful
perusal of the documents and material on file, I am
inclined to believe that the properties acquired by the
accused are attributable to their income, earnings or
assets derived from the sale proceeds or narcotic
drugs. Following analysis on the acquisition of the
properties by the accused vis-a-vis their source of
income will show the reasons for believe….
NVSK, J
5 W.P.No.298 of 2025
11. ….
12. ….
13. ….
14. ….
15. ….
16. ….
17. ….
18. ….
19. After going through the investigation
carried out by the empowered officer and also on the
basis of material on record, I am satisfied that the
movable and immovable properties in table A, B and
C of para 4 as explained above, are ‘illegally
acquired properties’ in terms of clause G of Section
68B of the Act and the same are likely to be
concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner
which will result in frustrating the proceedings under
the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER
20. Now, therefore I the Commissioner/
Competent Authority and Administrator,
(SAFEM(FOP)A & NDPSA), in exercise of powers
conferred on me, under Section 68F(2) of the NDPS
Act, hereby confirm the freezing order dated
20.02.2024 passed by the Shri K.Pratap Lingam,
Inspector, Shadnagar Police Station and direct that
(i)the immovable properties in the form of house sites
and agricultural lands held by PA.2 (vide
Doc.Nos.5026/2019, 213/2020, 4707/2022
NVSK, J
6 W.P.No.298 of 2025
[mortgaged document in respect of sale deeds
360/2019, 213/2020, 4707/2022 [mortgaged
document in respect of sale deeds 360/2021 &
361/2021], 17309/2022, and 2589/2023), PA.4
(vide Doc.Nos.4748/2020, 4753/2020, 4747/2020,
and 4826/2022), and PA.6 (vide
Doc.Nos.26668/2018, 24805/2018, 1328/2018,
7884/2018, 8292/2019, 13116/2019,
21303/2019, 13117/2019 and 2288/2021), as
mentioned in the Table A of para 4 above, (ii)
movable property of vehicle bearing Regn.No.TS-17-
M-0112 held by PA.5, as mentioned in Table B of
para 4 above and (iii) movable properties of credit
balances available in the SBI Bank Account
No.62356918333 held by PA.1, SBI Bank
A/c.Nos.52182623577, and 32975182574 held by
PA.2, SBI Bank A/c.No.62256245608 held by PA.3
and SBI Bank A/c.No.52182608093 held by PA.4
including accretions thereto, as mentioned in the
Table C of para 4 above, shall not be transferred,
disposed of, alienated or otherwise dealt with,
without my prior permission.
21. This order passed by the Competent
Authority under Section 68F(2) of the NDPS Act, is a
confirmation of the seizure/freezing order issued by
the Empowered Officer, under Section 68F(1) of the
NDPS Act. This order places a temporary restraint on
the accused person or the persons affected, from
concealing or transferring or dealing with the illegally
NVSK, J
7 W.P.No.298 of 2025
acquired property, in any manner, under Chapter VA
of the NDPS Act, 1985. The empowered officer may
keep track of the criminal proceedings initiated
against the accused person and in the event of
conviction with imprisonment for a term of ten years
or more, immediately report such conviction, to this
Office, for initiating further action for forfeiture of
illegally acquired property, 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 empowered officer, may seek release of
the restraint on the illegally acquired property or
assets under Section 68-Z of the NDPS Act.
22. In the Bank account statements, many
deposit and transfer entries are found and therefore
the Investigating Officer may further examine the
origin/destination of flow of money and investigate
properties if any, for legal action.
23. Any officer or any person affected, if
aggrieved by this order made under Section 68F(2),
may within 45 days from the date on which the
order is served on the person affected, appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal, 4th floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi – 110 003.”
Questioning the said confirmatory order dated 20.03.2024,
the present writ petition is filed.
NVSK, J
8 W.P.No.298 of 2025
4. Mr.Vedula Venkatramana, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has filed a synopsis stating that on 25.12.2023
respondent No.3/Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station
had registered a crime against the petitioner in Cr.No.894 of
2023 for the alleged offences under Section 8(C) r/w 22(C) and
29 of NDPS Act. The allegations raised in the said crime are that
(2) Two KGs of Alprazolam in colour packets was contained in a
car of Golla Ramesh (PA.1) near the compound of Sakkubai
Nilayam. On 12.12.2023, Gachibowli Police Station has
registered FIR No.1386 of 2023 against petitioner (A.7 in the said
Crime) wherein the allegation is that 17 KGs of Alprazolam was
agreed to be sold to the petitioner and the money will be given
later. A charge sheet has been filed before I Additional District
Judge, L.B.Nagar. It is submitted that in both the crimes it is
seen that there is no recovery of Alprazolam either from the body
or from the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 20.02.2024,
the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar has passed freezing order
alleging that movable and immovable properties acquired by the
petitioner are tainted through illegal income by selling of
Alprazolam. On 20.03.2024, the competent authority i.e.,
respondent No.2 has passed the confirmatory order of freezing
order dated 20.02.2024 under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act.
NVSK, J
9 W.P.No.298 of 2025
5. In the grounds raised in the writ petition, it is urged that
the freezing order passed by investigating officer and the
confirmation of the same by respondent No.2 is illegal and
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 cannot 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.
NVSK, J
10 W.P.No.298 of 2025
6. This Court in I.A.No.2 of 2025 vide order dated
06.01.2025 has temporarily suspended the impugned order by
relying on the judgment of the Aslam Mohammad Merchant
(supra).
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENT NO.3:
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by Inspector of Police,
Shadnagar Police Station i.e., respondent No.3 herein stating
that on 25.12.2023 at about 9.00 AM, the Woman Sub Inspector
of Police, PS Shadnagar, received credible information that one
person was illegally selling alprazolam and another person
purchasing the same at “Sakkubai Nilayam”, near Akula
Mallesham Function Hall, New City Colony, Parigi Road,
Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District and made a GD entry and
proceeded to the said place along with staff and panch witnesses
and at about 10.00 AM, found a person coming towards the car
from the compound of the said mentioned “Sakku Bai Nilayam”
and while both were discussing, immediately she along with the
team caught hold of them and seized four bags from the hands of
one Golla Ramesh (A2), and had found white colour powder and
on weighing, found it to be two KGs of Alprazolam. On enquiry, it
was revealed that the said contraband was purchased by A1
NVSK, J
11 W.P.No.298 of 2025from one Vittal Goud (A2) and sold it to one G.Venkataiah
(petitioner herein and others). It is stated that four months ago
Accused No.1 purchased 10 KGs of Alprazolam from Accused
No.2 and sold the same to the petitioner herein. Thereafter,
the Sub-Inspector seized two KGs of Alprazolam along with 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 8(c) read with 22(c) of NDPS Act. The petitioner is
Accused No.3 in the said Crime.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has illegally
acquired several assets in the name of his family members in
contravention to Section 68C of NDPS Act and the assets are in
the possession of his family members and the money in their
Bank Accounts and property have been acquired illegally from
the illegal act of selling alprazolam. 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
NVSK, J
12 W.P.No.298 of 2025
passed the freezing Order No.182/SNR/CYB/2024 dated
20.02.2024 in the above crime No.894/2023 under Section
68F(1) of the NDPS Act. The Income tax returns filed by the
petitioner for the last 6 years were referred in the counter
affidavit are as follows:
Assessment year 2022-23 - 4,33,090.00
Assessment year 2021-22 - 3,96,220.00
Assessment year 2020-21 - 4,53,870.00
Assessment year 2019-20 - 3,15,710.00
Assessment year 2018-19 - 10,03,902.00
Assessment year 2017-18 - 8,11,275.00
9. It is further submitted that as per the statement of
Encumbrance on property, the petitioner and family had
purchased the following properties:
1. Doc.No.5026/2019 dated 21.02.2019 – Rs.3,00,000.00
2. Doc.No.213/2020 dated 18.12.2020 – Rs.4,18,575.00
3. Doc.No.4479/2022 dated 23.03.2022 – Rs.9,00,000.00
4. Doc.No.17309/2022 dat ed 27.12.2022 – Rs.10,60,000.00
5. Doc.No.2589/2023 dated 18.07.2023 – Rs.4,99,800.00
(purchased in the name of the petitioner)
6. Doc.No.26668/2018 – Rs.3,67,500.00
NVSK, J
13 W.P.No.298 of 2025
7. Doc.No.24805/2018 – Rs.3,34,000.00
8. Doc.No.1328/2018 dated 11.01.2018 – Rs.4,25,000.00
9. Doc.No.7884/2018 dated 22.05.2018 – Rs.5,94,000.00
10. Doc.No.13116/2019 dated 16.07.2019 – Rs.3,00,000.00
11. Doc.No.13117/2019 dated 16.07.2019 – Rs.9,00,000.00
12. Doc.No.21303/2019 dated 03.12.2019 – Rs.13,05,000.00
13. Doc.No.2288/2021 dated 20.07.2021 – Rs.74,950.00
(Purchased in the name of petitioner’s son viz.,
Mr.G.Sharath, aged about 20 years, DOB: 19.11.1999.)
14. Doc.No.4748/2020 dated 08.06.2020 – Rs.32,000.00
15. Doc.No.4653/2020 dated 08.06.2020 – Rs.63,000.00
16. Doc.No.4747/2020 dated 08.06.2020 – Rs.75,000.00
17. Doc.No.4826/2022 dated 22.10.2022 – Rs.18,80,463.00
(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 Branch – Rs.51,665.00
3. SBI, Shabad Branch (wife) – Rs.75,860.00
10. It is submitted that as per the Income Tax returns from
2018 onwards, the amount disclosed by the petitioner was about
NVSK, J
14 W.P.No.298 of 2025
Rs.35,00,000/- whereas, petitioner has purchased properties
worth Rs.95,00,000/- during the said period apart from cash
balance of about Rs.4,00,000/-. It is further submitted that
petitioner has no other source of earning and he is the only
earning member of his family. During the investigation
it was revealed that the petitioner qualifies as ‘person’ within the
meaning of Section 68A(2)(e) r/w 68B(b)(ii) of NDPS Act for
proceedings under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. The Investigating
Officer, during the course of financial investigation, identified the
above properties and traced it and believed that the said
properties were acquired out of illicit trade of narcotic drugs and
therefore attracts Section 68B(g) of NDPS Act. Based on the said
findings, the Investigating Officer passed the order on
20.02.2024 freezing the above said properties. Thereafter, the
competent authority issued notice on 23.02.2024 and granted
permission for personal hearing on 04.03.2024 and afforded an
opportunity of personal hearing, to file written submissions or
reply. Accordingly, petitioner has filed reply on 11.03.2024
stating that since he was not arrested in the case, the provisions
of Chapter VA of NDPS Act are not applicable to him and that he
has also obtained anticipatory bail.
NVSK, J
15 W.P.No.298 of 2025
11. It is further submitted that after perusing the material
on record and considering the petitioner’s reply, the competent
authority passed impugned orders on 20.03.2024 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 viz., SBI, Shabad Branch bearing
A/c.No.52182623577 would reveal that there were higher value
of credits and petitioner also failed to answer as to the services
rendered 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.35,00,000/-. 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.535/2023 dated 27.09.2023 of Director of Prohibition and
NVSK, J
16 W.P.No.298 of 2025
Excise, the existing value of Alprazolam is Rs.10,00,000/- per
kg. It is further submitted that 0.25 mg to 0.5 mg., Alprazolam
is added to 1 bottle of Kalthi Kallu to make adulterated toddy.
Each gram of Alprazolam is used to make around 2000
Adulterated Toddy bottles each of which is sold at Rs.20/- per
bottle. Thus, each Rs.1000/- invested in Alprazolam results in
return of Rs.40,000/- and not Rs.2,00,000/- as mentioned by
the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the investigation, it
is revealed that petitioner was running a toddy compound in
Shadnagar and was procuring Alprazolam for that purpose and
that the Investigating Officer has not only freezed the properties
of the petitioner, his wife and his son but also properties of the
other accused involved in the case who have illegally acquired
properties in terms of Clause (g) of Section 68B of NDPS Act.
It is further submitted that respondent No.2 confirmed the
freezing order issued by the Investigating Officer and placed a
temporary restraint on the accused person from concealing or
transferring or dealing with the illegally acquired property, in
any manner under Chapter V-A of NDPS Act.
NVSK, J
17 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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 Bank account
statements, respondent No.2 stated that money deposits and
transfer entries are found and therefore Investigating Officer may
further examine the origin/destination of flow of money and
investigate properties, if any, for legal 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 names.
14. It is further submitted that as per Section 68J of NDPS
Act any property specified in the notice served under Section
68H is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person
affected, as such, the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the
said properties are not illegally acquired properties. That apart,
the order of the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 dated
20.03.2024 under the heading ‘reasons to believe’ also recorded
NVSK, J
18 W.P.No.298 of 2025
the fact PA.1 and PA.2 i.e., petitioner are habitual offenders who
are involved in similar drug trafficking case in Cr.No.1386 of
2023 under Section 8(c), 29 of NDPS Act of Gachibowli Police
Station and a charge sheet was filed vide S.C. No.148 of 2024
pending on the file of the I Additional District Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER:
15. Mr.Vedula Venkatrmana, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner would submit that though the impugned order is
appealable under Section 68(O) to the Appellate Tribunal, New
Delhi, the appellate remedy does not provide effective relief since
the very confirmatory orders passed by respondent No.2 on the
freezing order passed by respondent No.3 is patently illegal and
without jurisdiction and not based on any justifiable reasons as
such the availability of alternate remedy is not a bar for
maintaining the writ petition as per the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trademarks 1. Learned senior counsel submits
that petitioner is accused No.3/(PA.2) and that by virtue of
freezing order, petitioner’s Bank account, landed property were
1
1998 (8) SCC 1
NVSK, J
19 W.P.No.298 of 2025
freezed and the petitioner is unable to draw money from the
Bank.
16. Learned senior counsel would further submit that as
per Section 68B(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 68E, there should be a process of identification
of illegally acquired property by the Police Officer by duly
recording reasons and conducting enquiry/investigation/survey.
Section 68F(1) envisages that if the police officer conducting
enquiry or investigation under Section 68E, 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/freezing the property can be passed which is to be
confirmed by the competent authority within 30 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 illegally
NVSK, J
20 W.P.No.298 of 2025
acquired from the income generated by the business of NDPS
substances and they are likely to be concealed to avoid forfeiture
under Section 68H of NDPS Act. He would further submit that
all the movable and immovable properties were acquired long
back prior to the two crimes viz., Shadnagar crime dated
25.12.2023 and Gachibowli Crime dated 12.12.2023 as such
there is no basis to construe that the properties which were
acquired from 2018 to 2023 are illegally acquired properties. As
such the impugned proceedings are not in consonance with the
mandatory provisions of law in terms of Section 68E and Section
68F of NDPS Act. Learned senior counsel would further submit
there is no allegation of mixing alprazolam with toddy and sale of
such toddy and derivation of income from such sale of
adulterated toddy. Learned senior counsel further submits that
the freezing of the accounts of the petitioner brings petitioner life
to a virtual stand still.
17. Learned senior counsel further submits that though
there is remedy of appeal available under Section 68(O) of NDPS
Act, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others 2
2
(2024) 6 SCC 579
NVSK, J
21 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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:
“(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in
accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure;
(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are
repealed; and
(iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the
principles of natural justice.”
18. Making further submissions, learned senior counsel
would rely on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aslam
Mohammad Merchan v. Competent authority 3 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 the statutory elements, namely, ‘reason
to believe’ and ‘recording of reasons’ must be
premised on the materials produced before him. Such
materials must have been gathered during the
investigation carried out in terms of Section 68-E or
otherwise. Indisputably therefore, he must have
some materials before him. If no such material had3
(2008) 14 SCC 186
NVSK, J
22 W.P.No.298 of 2025been placed before him, he cannot initiate a
proceeding. He cannot issue a show cause notice on
his own ipse dixit. A roving enquiry is not
contemplated under the said Act as properties
sought to be forfeited must have a direct nexus with
the properties illegally acquired.
It is now a trite law that whenever a statute
provides for ‘reason to believe’, either the reasons
should appear on the face of the notice or they must
be available on the materials which had been placed
before him….”
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT SOLICITOR
GENERAL:
19. Mr.B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor
General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 refuted
the contentions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
would refer to paragraph 6 of the order dated 20.03.2024 stating
that, notices were issued giving an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner and that via e-mail dated 10.03.2024
petitioner has filed written submissions which has been
considered and no foundation was made in the grounds to the
extent that the order of respondent No.2 is illegal. Learned
Assistant Solicitor General would further submit that order of
freezing dated 20.02.2024 has been communicated by
NVSK, J
23 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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 68(F) of NDPS Act and the competent
authority is having jurisdiction under Section 68D of NDPS Act
to proceed as per law and under provisions of Section 68H 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 appeal on the Person Affected to the
appellate tribunal within a period of 45 days, as such the
submissions of the learned senior counsel 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 20.03.2024, 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 freezing order and as per provisions of Section
68J, the entire burden of proof lies on petitioner to prove that
the specified properties were not illegally acquired property and
NVSK, J
24 W.P.No.298 of 2025
the same ratio is applicable in proceedings under Section 68F
also whereby an opportunity was granted to the petitioner as a
part of natural justice though there is no provision for granting
such opportunity of making submissions or personal hearing.
As such the orders passed by both the respondents are based on
the mandate of law and is not an order under unjustifiable
grounds.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.3:
20. Learned Government Pleader for Home Sri Mahesh Raje
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 also filed synopsis would
narrate the sequence of facts and proceedings and submits that
on 25.12.2023, an FIR was registered in FIR No.894 of 2023
under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act. That the
Shadnagar Police, on reliable information, visited petitioner’s
house and apprehended PA.2 (A2) and PA.4 (A4) and seized two
KGs of Alprazolam. He would further submit that petitioner is
also involved in another FIR No.1386 of 2023 of Gachibowli
Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, wherein (7) Seven
KGs of Alprazolam powder as well as cash of Rs.19,00,000/- was
seized from the possession. Accused No.3 i.e., the petitioner
herein was granted with Anticipatory Bail vide Crl.P.No.2183
NVSK, J
25 W.P.No.298 of 2025
and 2186 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and furnished bail bonds on
02.03.2024.
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 and 4 were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional
Court and the learned Magistrate sent them to judicial custody.
Accused No.1 arrest was regularized through PT warrant as he
was already in judicial custody in connection with
Cr.No.364/2023 of Medak Town Police Station, Shadnagar. On
20.02.2024, The Station House Officer, Shadnagar Police
Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate proposed to respondent
No.2 to freeze the illegally acquired assets and bank accounts of
the petitioner and his family members under Section 68F(1) of
NDPS Act. On 23.02.2024, respondent No.2 issued notices to
A.2, A.3, A.7 and petitioner’s wife, son and Smt.Neredi Saritha
granting an opportunity of final hearing on 04.03.2024.
22. The petitioner submitted a reply on 11.03.2024 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 20.03.2024, respondent No.2 passed impugned order under
NVSK, J
26 W.P.No.298 of 2025
Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act, 1985 confirming the freezing order
dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Investigating Officer and stated
that the impugned order is a temporary restraint order on the
accused person from concealing or transferring or dealing with
the illegally acquired property, in any manner under Chapter V-
A of NDPS Act. Though Respondent No.2 in the impugned order
stated that the accused has a right to file an appeal before the
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi within the stipulated period of 45
days, the petitioner without filing appeal and infact after a lapse
of more than 9 months from the date of impugned order, filed
the present writ petition.
23. Learned Government Pleader would further refer to the
IT returns filed by the petitioner disclosing his income as stated
supra. It is further concluded that the petitioner has no other
source of income except selling Alprazolam and there is no
earning member in the family. He would further submit that the
Investigating Officer revealed that the petitioner qualifies as
‘person’ within the meaning of Section 68A(2)(e) read with
68B(b)(ii) of NDPS Act for proceedings under Chapter VA of
NDPS Act and in the course of financial investigation carried out
by him under Section 68(E) of NDPS Act identified the above
NVSK, J
27 W.P.No.298 of 2025
properties and traced in the name of the accused and his family
members.
24. He would further submit that the value of properties
vis-à-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 submit that drug trafficking
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 Merchant v. Competent authority which
is also relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
wherein the Hon’ble 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 any
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
NVSK, J
28 W.P.No.298 of 2025
contend that petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy of
appeal under Section 68-O of NDPS Act, which he has not
exhausted. The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property is a
specialized body with competence to examine such freezing
orders and direct invocation of writ jurisdiction bypassing
statutory remedy is not warranted and the writ petition may be
dismissed at the threshold. He would also submit that NDPS Act
is a special statute enacted to prevent and control illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs and its provisions including freezing of properties,
are aimed at crippling financial network of traffickers.
Interference with freezing order undermines public interest in
preventing drug trafficking and weakens enforcement efforts.
Eventually he would submit that since the investigation is at
nascent stage, this Court need not interfere at this stage.
25. While making submissions, the learned Government
Pleader for Home also placed a copy of the charge-sheet in FIR
No.894/2023 dated 25.12.2023 filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
in the Court of the I Additional District Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. The details have been filed with
Inward No.904/2025 dated 07.03.2025.
NVSK, J
29 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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 20.03.2024, 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) and the said properties were reasonably
believed to have been acquired out of illicit trade of narcotic
drugs and therefore deemed to be illegally acquired properties as
defined under Section 68B(g) 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 shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt
without prior permission from the empowered officer or the
competent authority. In the order, details of 19 immovable
NVSK, J
30 W.P.No.298 of 2025
properties of the petitioner and his family along with movables
were annexed.
29. Respondent No.2 in his ‘reasons to believe’ has
submitted that petitioner along with G.Mallaiah (P.A.1) were
habitual offenders who were involved in similar drug trafficking
case in Cr.No.1386/2023 under Section 8(c) read with Section
22(c), 29 of NDPS Act on the file of Gachibowli Police Station. In
the said order, it is further observed that on investigation of the
empowered officer, it is found that P.A.4 is a house wife while
P.A.6 is a student who had no income source to acquire the said
immovable properties and thereby concluded that the properties
held in the name of P.A.4 and P.A.6 are attributable to the
income of P.A.2 (i.e., the petitioner herein). Thereafter, notice
dated 23.02.2024 was issued to all the persons affected (PAs)
through empowered officer and acknowledgments were taken on
record by fixing the personal hearing on 04.03.2024. As regards,
P.A.2, P.A.4 and P.A.6 are concerned, it was reported that they
were absconding and hence the hearing notices were served by
way of affixture. Thereafter, the petitioner, on request, was
granted time till 11.03.2024 for submission of reply and the
petitioner by way of e-mail dated 10.03.2024 submitted written
NVSK, J
31 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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
Mohammad Merchant’s (cited supra) and also on the
anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by this Court on
28.02.2024 in Crl.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 and that apart from the alleged confessional statement
there is no material to implicate him in the case and there is no
recovery from him.
31. 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’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tofan Singh Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (reported in (2021) 4 SCC); Sharik Khan
Vs. NCB (SLP (Crl.) Dairy No.48232/2023) dated 06.03.2024;
Aslam Mohammad Merchant Vs. Competent Authority and
other (reported in 2008) 14 SCC 186 and Order passed by this
NVSK, J
32 W.P.No.298 of 2025
Court in Crl.P. No.12925 of 2023 dated 03.01.2024, 10.01.2024
& 24.01.2024.
32. In the discussions and the findings of the respondent
No.2 in his order dated 20.03.2024, it is noted from the
statements of PA-1 given before the Investigating Officer that the
PA-2/petitioner played a role in the commission of the offence
and drug trafficking, which would render him as an associate of
PA-1.
33. In the findings of the order of the respondent No.2
dated 20.03.2024, as far as the contention of the nexus between
the impugner property and the income of PA is concerned,
respondent No.2 referred to the explanation inserted by NDPS
(Amdt.) Act, 2014 dated 30.04.2014 below Sec.68H, which is
relevant:
“[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that in a case where the provisions of Section 68J are
applicable, no notice under this section shall be invalid merely on
the ground that it fails to mention the evidence relied upon or it
fails to establish a direct nexus between the property sought to be
forfeited and any activity in contravention of the provisions of this
Act.].
NVSK, J
33 W.P.No.298 of 2025
34. Further, respondent No.2 also relied upon the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aslam
Mohammad (supra), which reads as under:
“44. We are not unmindful of the purport and object of the
Act. Dealing in narcotics is a social evil that must be curtailed or
prohibited at any cost. Chapter VA seeks to achieve a salutary
purpose. But, it must also be borne in mind that right to hold
property although no longer a fundamental right is still a
constitutional right. It is a human right.
The provisions of the Act must be interpreted in a manner so that
its constitutionality is upheld. The validity of the provisions might
have received constitutional protection, but when stringent laws
become applicable as a result whereof some persons are to be
deprived of his/her right in a property, scrupulous compliance of
the statutory requirements is imperative.”
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 68H is not
illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected and
same ratio is applicable in proceedings under Section 68F also
where the opportunity is granted as a part of natural justice. The
NVSK, J
34 W.P.No.298 of 2025
petitioner was granted with maximum possible opportunities and
sufficient time to submit his reply and relevant documents to
prove that the frozen movable and immovable properties were
not acquired out of income derived from illicit trade of drugs and
thereafter, order under Section 68F(2) following an order under
Section 68F(1) has to be passed within a period of 30 days.
Therefore, the competent authority had proceeded to decide the
case on the basis of records and documents available on file.
Respondent No.2, on a careful perusal of material placed on
record believed that the properties acquired by the PAs are
attributable to their income, earnings or assets derived from the
sale proceeds of narcotic drugs.
36. After going through the investigation carried out by the
empowered officer and also on the basis of the materials on
record, the Competent Authority was satisfied that the movable
and immovable properties are ‘illegally acquired properties’ in
terms of clause (g) of Section 68B of NDPS Act and the same are
likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner
which will result in frustrating the proceedings under Chapter
VA of NDPS Act and thereby confirmed the freezing order dated
20.02.2024 passed by the empowered officer i.e., respondent
NVSK, J
35 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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 Officer 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 illegally acquired property under
Section 68Z 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. Accordingly,
the competent authority confirmed the freezing order.
37. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 has
placed a copy of FIR No.894/2023 dated 25.12.2023 registered
under Sections 22(c) and 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
NVSK, J
36 W.P.No.298 of 2025
property shall be on the person affected. Respondent No.3, in the
counter affidavit, referred to the details of Income Tax returns
filed by the petitioner during the last 6 assessment years and
also furnished the details of statements of encumbrances on
properties purchased by the petitioner and his son and also in
the name of his wife. In the counter, the details of the Bank
account operated by the petitioner and his wife and by verifying
details of Income Tax returns from 2018 onwards wherein an
income of Rs.35,00,000/- was disclosed and the petitioner has
purchased the properties worth Rs.95,00,000/-.
The Investigating Officer further has filed the details of several
higher value credits during the last 6 years and stated that the
petitioner has not given any answer as to the source rendered for
those credits.
CONCLUSION:
38. As observed by respondent No.2, petitioner appears to
be habitual offender involved in drug trafficking case. As far as
petitioner and family members purchasing properties prior to
crime and whether petitioner was also involved in earlier such
crimes and such properties have any nexus to income derived
from drug trafficking is to be established by a progressive and
NVSK, J
37 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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 analysis of Income Tax returns of petitioner, observed
that petitioner/PA.2 did not report any immovable property in
the ITRs filed during the assessment years relevant to the
financial years in which the said immovable properties were
acquired. It appears that petitioner/PA.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. Similarly, the petitioner failed to
provide details 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
NVSK, J
38 W.P.No.298 of 2025
notice being served on her through affixtures as per the
provisions of Section 68X of the NDPS Act. As such respondent
No.2 held that properties held in the name of PA.4 were acquired
out of income derived from illicit trade of narcotic drugs. Similar
observation was made in the case of PA.6 (son of petitioner) who
is a student and in all the sale deeds PA.6 was shown as student
and sale consideration was paid in cash. PA.6 has not filed any
income tax return and there was no submission of the petitioner
representing his son, who seems to be unavailable for hearing.
39. The Psychotropic Substance Alprazolam is
included in the Schedule (Clause (xxiii) of Section 2) in the
list of Phychotropic Substances.
40. For better appreciation, Section 68J of the Narcotic
Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is extracted
hereunder:
“68J. Burden of Proof.- In any proceedings under this
Chapter, the burden of proving that any property specified in the
notice served under section 68H is not illegally acquired property
shall be on the person affected.”
NVSK, J
39 W.P.No.298 of 2025
41. 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 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 any 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 reply
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 was passed on the basis of
FIR No.894/2023, as per submissions of learned Government
Pleader for Home, the petitioner was also involved in FIR
No.1386/2023 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station and a
charge sheet was filed pending on the file of the I Additional
District Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. In the charge
NVSK, J
40 W.P.No.298 of 2025
sheet dated 16.08.2024 filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it is
submitted that petitioner is Accused No.7 in FIR No.1386/2023.
That apart for the present case, the petitioner has also bypassed
the alternative remedy available under Section 68(O) of NDPS Act
and did not demonstrate compelling reasons as to why the
existing process is inadequate or would cause significant
injustice. Since the Charge Sheets are already filed in
Cr.No.1386/2023 dated 12.12.2023 and in the present crime in
Cr.No.894/2023 dated 25.12.2023 pending on the file of
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at
L.B. Nagar by respondent No.3, petitioner has a remedy to prove
his bona fides before the said Court.
44. It is to be noted that the confirmatory order dated
20.03.2024 is not based on isolated incident as the petitioner
was also involved in both the crimes i.e. Cr.No.1386/2023 dated
12.12.2023 and in the present crime in Cr.No.894/2023 dated
25.12.2023, which occurred within a short time span. As such
conclusions arrived at by respondent No.2 in freezing order
dated 20.02.2024 is well founded. The petitioner in the entire
affidavit has no where stated the nature of his business and how
the said properties in the freezing order have been acquired. In
NVSK, J
41 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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 available under Section 68(O) of NDPS Act,
wherein the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited 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 also, the writ petition is not maintainable. There
is nothing and no material has been filed to prove that the said
properties were acquired by legal means. 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 Police Station, Cyberabad
Commissionerate, dated 06.01.2025 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
NVSK, J
42 W.P.No.298 of 2025
(through video conference) on 04.03.2024 @ 12.00 Noon under
Section 68F of the NDPS Act, 1985, before the Competent
Authority (SAFEM (FOP) A & NDPSA) Chennai, was intimated to
the petitioner in which details of movable and immovable
properties of PA-1 to PA-6 were mentioned. The petitioner has
also submitted a detailed reply on 11.03.2023. Thereafter,
respondent No.3 has passed freezing order on 20.02.2024 under
Section 68F(1) read with Section 68E of Chapter V-A of the Act,
1985 and respondent No.2 confirmed the said freezing order on
20.03.2024 under 68F(2) of the Act. The respondents have
followed the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985.
45. It is further noted that as per the record and
submissions made by respondents, it is revealed that notice was
issued to the petitioner under Section 68H and respondent No.2
has confirmed the freezing order within 30 days. As such,
the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the
petitioner does not support the petitioner’s case and on the basis
of material placed, this Court is of the considered opinion that
statutory conditions prescribed under the Act stands satisfied
and the burden is on the petitioner to show his source for the
acquisition of the said properties and prove that they are not
NVSK, J
43 W.P.No.298 of 2025
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. In view of all 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 relief 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 and in the interest of justice, considering the bona fide
requirements of the petitioner and his family members,
this Court grants limited/conditional access to the frozen
accounts of the petitioner mentioned in the order dated
20.02.2024 and as confirmed by respondent No.2 in the order
NVSK, J
44 W.P.No.298 of 2025
dated 20.03.2024, subject to petitioner providing proof of legal
income credits and also on the grounds of urgent relief however,
subject to Trial Court/Competent Court permission while dealing
with forthcoming credits. The petitioner may file an application
before the Trial Court/Competent Court seeking for withdrawal
of such legal proceeds credited in the petitioner’s frozen account
for his legitimate livelihood and for the medical expenses of his
family.
48. It is made clear that this order is only confined to the
observations made in confirmation order dated 20.03.2024
passed by the respondent No.2 and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and the competent
Authority or Trial Court may proceed independently in
accordance to law uninfluenced by the findings of this Court.
49. In the result:
a) the impugned order dated 20.03.2024
passed by respondent No.2 warrants no
interference and the writ petition stands
dismissed to that extent; and
NVSK, J
45 W.P.No.298 of 2025
b) however, if the petitioner makes any
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
dated 20.02.2024 and as confirmed by order
dated 20.03.2024, the Competent Court/Trial
Court may consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in accordance to law.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 21.04.2025
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
B/o.
Mrm/LSK
[ad_1]
Source link