Freezing of a bank account under Section 68F of the NDPS Act is illegal and unsustainable if the order is not confirmed by the competent authority within the statutory period of 30 days as mandated by Sub-section (2).

##PAGE1##

MHCC020040502021

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND

PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY

ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT-782

IN

SPECIAL (NDPS) CASE NO. 344 OF 2021

1. Sandhya Chakraborty

2. Rhea Chakraborty .. Applicants

V/s.

Union of India

(Through Narcotic Control Bureau

F.No.NCB/MZU/CR-16/2020) .. Respondent/Prosecution

Appearance :

Ld. Adv. Ayaz Khan a/w Zehra Charania for the applicants

Ld. APP Geeta Nayyar for the respondent/prosecution.

CORAM : H.H. J. SHRI U.C. DESHMUKH

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R.43)

DATE : 25/04/2026

ORDER

This is an application moved by the applicants to defreeze

account no.120001500538 with ICICI Bank and permit to operate it.

2. Applicants contend that the the respondent have not

followed provisions of Section 68F of the N.D.P.s. Act, 1985 (in short

OBE-782 ..2.. in NDPS Case No.344/2021

‘the Act’). Therefore, freezing of bank account is illegal. Hence, this

application.

3. Prosecution opposes the application on the ground that

from the statement of the accused Rhea Chakraborty it is seen that she

is active member of drug syndicate contacted with drug peddlers and

therefore, officer of the respondent is satisfied in freezing the bank

accounts of the accused and therefore, prayed to reject the application.

4. Ld. advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the

decision of the Hon’ble High court in Jatinder Kaur Chilotra Vs.

Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue and Ors. [All MR (Cri)

1120). Wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed that in absence of

compliance of Sub-section 2 of Section 68F of the Act an act of freezing

of bank account cannot be justified. The observations of the Hon’ble

High Court in para 21 are relevant. Hence, reproduced hereinbelow,

“21. The approach of the Court in construing the aforesaid

provisions ought to be in consonance with the

constitutional recognition of the right to property. On a

proper construction, the power to seize or freeze the

property under Section 68F of the Act, 1985, cannot be

said to be unregulated or uncanalized. The empowered

officer must have reason to believe that the property is

illegally acquired property and it is likely to be concealed,

transferred or dealt with in any manner which will result in

frustrating any proceedings relating to forfeiture of such

property under Chapter VA. He is enjoined to duly inform

the competent authority and also forward a copy of such

order to the competent authority. Sub-Section (2) of

Section 68F envisages further control over the exercise of

such power, by vesting in competent authority the power to

confirm such order and upon non-confirmation thereof,

within a period of 30 days, render such order nugatory.

OBE-782 ..3.. in NDPS Case No.344/2021

The compliance of these provisions justifies the deprivation

of the right to property”.

5. Sub-section (2) of the Section 68F of the Act provides that

an order of freezing or seizing the property shall have no effect unless

such order is confirmed by an order of the competent authority within

period of 30 days of its being made. There is no dispute that subject

matter of the bank account has been freeze by the Officer of the

respondent. The respondent does not deny that there is no compliance

of Sub-section (2) of Section 68F of the Act. There is no order as

contemplated to be passed under such provisions of Act. Therefore, in

view of the observations of the Hon’ble High Court in Jatinder (supra)

and provisions of Section 68F of the Act, the application is liable to be

allowed. Hence, the order -

6.

O R D E R

(i) Application (Exh.782) in Special (NDPS) Case no.344/2021

stands allowed.

(ii) Account no. 120001500538 with ICICI Bank be defree