Advocates:
['L K GIRI', 'PP', '', 'M R PAREEK']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2413/2022

M/s Ridley Life Science Private Limited Delhi, Having Registered

Office At-D-1651, DSIDC Industrial Complex Narela New Delhi-

110040.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2.

N.C.B., Through Its Nodal Officer Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Lakshimikant Giri

Mr. Ram Kumar Gautam, Director of

petitioner company

through V.C.

For Respondent(s)

:

-

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

08/08/2022

1.

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code or

Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed with the following prayer:

"1. An appropriate direction may be issued to the

NCB official to defreez the account of the petitioner.

2. Set aside the order dated 13.08.2021, passed by

the Learned Special Judge, NDPS. Dismissing the

application filed by the petitioner for defreezing the

account."

2.

On 07.05.2022, after hearing rival counsel, this Court had

passed the following order:

"1. By way of the present petition filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

petitioner has challenged the order dated

13.08.2021 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-2413/2022]

Cases, Jodhpur whereby his application dated

10.08.2021, challenging the letter/communication

dated 15.12.2020 issued by the respondent No.2

whereby withdrawal from the petitioner’s account

No.42560500000002 has been stopped, has been

rejected.

2. Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that impugned communication is absolutely

without jurisdiction inasmuch as even it is assumed

that any investigation is pending against the

petitioner, the operation of its bank account cannot

be stopped as the same amounts to violation of

petitioner’s constitutional right to carry on trade and

business.

3. Mr. Pareek, learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of NCB submits that by virtue of

powers conferred by Section 68-E and 68-F of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), the

respondent No.2 has power to seize the bank

account

and

consequently

stall

the

transactions/operations.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits

that since the petitioner – Company is not

cooperating in the investigation and regardless to a

number of summons issued to it, the respondent

No.2 was left with no option but to issue impugned

communication dated 15.12.2020.

5. A perusal of Section 68-E and 68-F of the NDPS

Act reveals that during the course of investigation,

an Investigating Officer has power to seize the

‘property’.

6. In the opinion of this Court, a bank account

cannot be said to be a property, much less an

illegally acquired property.

7. That apart, no satisfaction/reason has been

recorded by the respondent No.2, while issuing

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-2413/2022]

impugned communication, which is a sine-qua non

for exercise of powers under Section 68-E of the

NDPS Act.

8. Matter requires consideration.

9. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also.

10. Mr. Pareek, learned Special Public Prosecutor

accepts notices on behalf of the respondent and

prays for and is granted six weeks time to file reply.

11. List the matter on 15.07.2022, as prayed.

12. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the

communication dated 15.12.2020 issued by the

respondent No.2 shall remain stayed.

13. Needless to observe that it will be obligatory for

the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation."

3.

Mr. Ram Kumar Gautam, Director of the petitioner-company

appearing virtually, identified by Mr. L.K. Giri, learned counsel for

the petitioner, submits that in furtherance of the above referred

order dated 07.05.2022, the NCB has defreezed the account and

the petitioner is operating his account.