##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Payal Sharma .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 85 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.9, Agra in Case Crime No.348 of 2023 under Section 8, 21, 22, 25, 27 A, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 17 (b), 27 (c), 28 (c) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has rejected Application No.1855 of 2025 filed by the revisionist/applicant, seeking the release of the seized disputed immovable property.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the learned Trial Court has passed the same without applying its judicial mind. The revisionist is neither named in the FIR nor she is an accused in the present case. She is the owner of the disputed property. It is further submitted that opposite parties, under the pretext of exercising the powers of search and seizure conferred under the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, has unlawfully sealed the premises belonging to the revisionist. It is also submitted that there is no provision under either of the aforesaid Acts authorizing to seal the premises. It is well-settled law that the sealing of premises for the purpose of securing evidence can only be temporary and not permanent. The premises of the revisionist were raided on 08.07.2023 and sealed on the same day on the basis of the machines found therein. However, more than two years have elapsed and the opposite parties have neither removed the machines nor recorded any evidence nor released the property to its rightful owner, i.e., the revisionist. Therefore, the continued sealing of the premises is illegal and unsustainable in law.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Private Limited Through its Director v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 119. The relevant portion of paragraph-9 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

“9. Reference in this regard can also be made to Jagdish Chander v. State [Jagdish Chander v. State, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 403 : (1990) 40 DLT 233] , wherein the petitioner had challenged the seizure action of the police on the ground that the word “seizure” appearing in Section 102 of the Code would imply actual taking of possession and, therefore, would not include immovable property. This contention was not answered and left open as the Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the seizure order therein under Section 102 of the Code was not in accordance with the statutory requirement as the property should be discovered under circumstances which create a suspicion of the commission of an offence, that is, the police officer should come across certain property in circumstances which create in his mind a suspicion that an offence has been committed. Section 102, it was held, would not be attracted where the property has not been traced or discovered which leads to a suspicion of an offence having been committed. Discovery of property should precede the detection of crime.”

6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Narayan Power Solutions vs. Union of India and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online Bom 1499. The relevant paragraph No.8 is quoted hereinbelow:-

“8. We are thus of the opinion that the Customs authorities would not hav