9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 219 - HC - Indian LawsFreezing of Bank Accounts - Chapter V-A under section 68-F and other related Sections given in Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act - It is averred that as the said account contained illegally acquired money so the IO had freezed the account of the petitioner - HELD THAT - The freezing order has been passed by the IO on 30.10.2019 which was to be sent for confirmation to the concerned competent authority as stipulated U/s 68 F(2) of NDPS Act which was accordingly sent by the IO on 31.10.2019 to the competent authority for confirming or declining the said freezing order and the time prescribed for this procedure is 30 days as per section 68 F(2) of the NDPS Act. The petition filed by the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as there is no challenge to the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 and in any case it was sent for confirmation to the competent authority on 31.10.2019 by the IO. The competent authority had 30 days time to either confirm or decline the freezing order but the petitioner came running to the court without laying any challenge to the present order dated 30.10.2019. The petition is not maintainable as there being no challenge to the freezing order dated 30.10.2019, so the same is dismissed. However, since the proceedings have been stayed by virtue of the order dated 05.11.2019, so the time for completion of the proceedings by the competent authority as per provisions of section 68F(2) of NDPS Act is extended for 25 days from the date of disposal of this writ petition. Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to freezing of bank account under NDPS Act. 2. Jurisdiction of Special Judge to defreeze bank account. 3. Misrepresentation in obtaining stay order. 4. Extension of time for confirming freezing order. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to freezing of bank account under NDPS Act The petitioner sought directions for defreezing a bank account frozen during a Narcotic Control Bureau case. The respondent had issued a letter to the bank to stop outgoing transactions from the account. The petitioner challenged this letter, alleging misrepresentation in obtaining a stay order. However, the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 by the investigating officer (IO) was not challenged in the petition. The IO had frozen the account under NDPS Act provisions, and the order was sent for confirmation to the competent authority as required by law. The court held that since the freezing order was not challenged, the petition was not maintainable, and it was dismissed. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Special Judge to defreeze bank account The petitioner contended that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for defreezing the bank account once the freezing order was not confirmed by the Competent Authority. The court noted that the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 was sent for confirmation to the competent authority on 31.10.2019, as mandated by the NDPS Act. The petitioner's failure to challenge this freezing order rendered the petition infructuous. The court emphasized that the Special Judge's jurisdiction was subject to the proper legal procedures, including confirmation of freezing orders by the Competent Authority. Issue 3: Misrepresentation in obtaining stay order The respondent had obtained a stay order on the basis of a notice dated 31.10.2019, which the petitioner alleged was procured by misrepresentation. The court found that the petitioner had not challenged the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 and the notice of the competent authority dated 31.10.2019. As the freezing order was not contested, the court held that the petition was not maintainable, and the stay order was extended to allow the competent authority to conclude the confirmation process. Issue 4: Extension of time for confirming freezing order The petitioner requested an extension of time for the competent authority to confirm or decline the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 due to the stay order. The court granted an extension of 25 days from the date of disposal of the petition to allow the competent authority the full 30 days as prescribed under the NDPS Act to decide on the freezing order. The petition and related application were disposed of with these directions.
|
