The prosecution must have prima facie evidence to link the currency notes with the sale proceeds of any drug in order to confiscate them under Section 62 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Jagwat Prashad has been challaned under Section 21/25/61/85, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the act ). The prosecution case is that on 30th August, 1991, the house of the petitioner was raided. The petitioner was present along with his family members. In one of the rooms situated at 1046, Lal Kuan, Main Bazar (IInd floor), Delhi a double bed was lying. A dirty pillow with cover was lying on the said double bed. The said pillow along with the cover was checked and a khakhi envelope was found on which in Hindi and English "punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi" was printed. On checking of the same six packets of currency notes were found out of which five packets were of the denomination of Rs. 100. 00 each and some loose currency notes of Rs. 100/ - were found total of which came to Rs. 55,000. 00. From the said cover a plastic bag containing 50 grams of Heroin was also recovered. Since the currency notes were lying in the same pillow cover where from the heroin was recovered, therefore, the raiding party seized the amount of Rs. 55,000. 00 treating it to be the sale proceed of drug.

( 2 ) IT is against this seizure of Rs. 55. 000. 00 that the petitioner moved an aplication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge asking for the release of the same on the ground that this amount was his personal money which he had collected from various sources namely:

I) Rs. 30,000. 00 was paid to him by Shri Rajesh Bhatt in connection with the deal in which a room on rent was handed over to him and, ii) Rs. l5,000. 00 was recovered on account of the sale of scooter No. DL-IS-6998. This scooter was sold by the son of the petitioner Sunil Kumar on 15th August, 1991 to Shri Abdul Wahid. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 was lying in cash in the house of the petitioner as the money was required for the purposes of marriage of his youngest daughter.

( 3 ) ALONG with the application he filed an affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Bhatt as well as copy of form under Section 29 to show the sale of the scooter. It was his contention that since the money was his personal property, it could not have been seized. He is entitled for the refund of the same. This application was contested by the State on the ground that there was a presumption that this amount must be the sale proceeds of the drug sold by the petitioner because this amount was also lying in the same pillow cover wherefrom the hereoin in question was recovered. On the basis of this presumption the amount was seized. The seizure amount therefore, cannot be returned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on this, rejected the application.

( 4 ) MR. Grover appearing for the petitioner contended that Chapter V of the N. D. P. S. Act deals with the procedure with regard to power of entry, search, seizure and arrest and also the confiscation of the goods and the sale proceeds. Chapter V-A of the said Act deals with the applicability of the Provisions of this Chapter to the persons mentioned in Sub Section 2 of 68a. He, therefore, contended that there is no material whatsoever on record to establish even prima facie that the amount of Rs. 55,000. 00 was the sale proceeds of any drug by the petitioner. He has drawn my attention to the provision of Section 62 of the said Act which reads as under:-

SECTION 62:- "confiscation of sale proceeds of illicit drugs of or substances;- Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the drug or substance is liable to confiscation under this Act, the sale proceeds thereof shall also be liable to confiscation. "

( 4 ) READING the above section makes it clear that it is only the sale proceeds of illicit drug which can be confiscated and even for that prosecution has to prima facie prove that the said substance was sold by the petitioner or had knowledge that this amount was the price of that subs