The burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate that properties are not illegally acquired under the NDPS Act, with the competent authority's findings upheld due to insufficient evidence.

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 Alprazolam3NVSK, J 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 dated4NVSK, J 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 по 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....

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 an