Trial courts lack jurisdiction to release property frozen under NDPS Act Section 68F after confirmation by competent authority; challenge lies before Appellate Tribunal under Section 68O.

JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, Judge

Both these revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioner(s)/State under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS) against the impugned orders dated 01.10.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP in Cr.MPs No.1165 & 1166 of 2024.

2. It has been averred by the petitioner(s)/State that FIR No.211/23, dated 23.12.2023, under Section 20 & 29 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Jawali against accused Shyam Lal (respondent No.2 in Cr. Revision No.835/2024) on the allegation that charas weighing 1.043 KG was recovered from the vehicle bearing registration No.HP37H-0393 being owned and driven by him. During the course of interrogation, accused Shyam Lal disclosed that he had received the contraband from one Lata Devi (respondent No.3 in Cr. Revision No.835 of 2024), which was to be delivered to Sohan Singh (respondent No.1 in Cr. Revision No.835 of 2024) at place Tikuri. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the police arrested accused Sohan Singh on 29.12.2204. Since the recovered contraband had fallen under the category of commercial quantity,therefore, financial investigation was carried out in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V-A of NDPS Act. During the course of investigation, police had seized the entire properties either registered in the name of accused Sohan Singh or in the name of his wife Reena Devi and his mother Somma Devi under Section 68 F of NDPS Act. In response to the seizure order, the competent authority had confirmed the same on 11.11.2024. The accused Sohan Singh alias Soni and and his wife Reena Devi moved applications (Cr.MP Nos.1166 & 1165 of 2024) under Section 451/467 of Cr.PC for release of the vehicles bearing registration Nos.HP-54C-9575 (Mahindra Pickup), HP-38H-3075 (Tractor) and HP-54D-0130 (Hyundai Venue) alongwith their documents and keys, which were allowed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide orders dated 01.10.2024.

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner(s)/State contended that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave illegality while allowing the applications filed by the respondents especially when the financial investigation under Section 68 of NDPS Act was still in progress because as per (Q) of NDPS Act, no Civil Court has the jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the appellate Tribunal or competent authority is empowered. He further contended that the investigating agency had mentioned that on completion of financial investigation under of NDPS Act, ceasing and freezing order would be issued and sent for confirmation to the competent authority, New Delhi.

4. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General well as the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the material on record.

5. Perusal of the material available on record reveals that the respondents herein have moved two separate applications under Section 451/457 of Cr.PC for release of the vehicles in question alongwith their documents and keys which applications were opposed by the petitioner-State on the ground that the financial investigation of the accused persons was being carried out under Section 68E of NDPS Act,. However despite the objections raised by the Investigating Agency, the Court below had ordered the release of vehicles bearing registration Nos.HP-54C-9575 (Mahindra Pickup), HP-38H-3075 (Tractor) and HP-54D-0130 (Hyundai Venue) in