Logo
Court Book - India Code App - Play Store

Loading Ad...

High Court: Jail Imprisonment Can’t Be Ground to Reject Appeal Against Property Freezing Under NDPS Act

Shivam Y.

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that appeal under NDPS Act cannot be rejected merely because the accused in jail failed to sign the petition. The court emphasized hearing on merits and procedural fairness.

High Court: Jail Imprisonment Can’t Be Ground to Reject Appeal Against Property Freezing Under NDPS Act

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently made a significant observation in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The Court ruled that an appeal filed under Section 68(O) of the NDPS Act should not be dismissed solely on the grounds that one of the petitioners, being in jail, could not sign the appeal documents or submit a sworn affidavit.

Read In Hindi

"The Appellate Authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits rather than throwing it away on account of the aforesaid defects especially when the removal of same was not within the control of the petitioner No.2, being lodged in Jail," stated the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry.

Background of the Case

The matter involved a petition filed by Pinky alias Pincky and another, challenging two orders. The first was dated September 22, 2023, and the second on January 7, 2025, both of which pertained to the freezing of their property under Section 68(F)(2) of the NDPS Act.

Read also:- Second Marriage No Bar to Maintenance Under DV Act, Rules Delhi High Court

The case stemmed from an FIR registered under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. Following the investigation, the Station House Officer passed an order under Section 68(F)(1) of the Act. This order was later confirmed by the Competent Authority/Administrator under Section 68(F)(2), freezing the property of the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged the freezing order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property under Section 68(O) of the NDPS Act. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing procedural defects.

The key issue was that Petitioner No.2, who was lodged in jail, could not sign the paper book or file a duly sworn affidavit in support of the appeal’s claims.

Read also:- MP High Court Orders Mandatory Injury Photography to Prevent Misuse of 'Petty' Sections in Serious Cases

“Request was made to the concerned Superintendent Jail for getting the affidavit of petitioner No.2 attested, but he required a court order to that effect, and due to this the defect remained unrectified,” the petitioners’ counsel informed the Court.

Acknowledging the procedural difficulty faced by the petitioner due to imprisonment, the Court ruled that the inability to fulfill procedural requirements beyond the control of the accused should not invalidate the right to be heard.

"When the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 68(O) and the appeal was already filed, the Appellate Authority should have decided the matter on merits," the Court held.

Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court: Husband Cannot Force Wife to Share Mobile or Bank Passwords

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's administrative order that dismissed the appeal due to defects and directed the following:

  • Petitioners must submit the appeal copy and affidavit of Petitioner No.2 to the Superintendent of Jail within 7 working days.
  • The Superintendent is directed to have the affidavit signed and attested in the presence of an Oath Commissioner.
  • The counsel for the petitioner should then immediately carry the signed affidavit to file the requisite application before the Appellate Authority within 15 days for revival of the appeal.

Read also:- MP High Court Orders ₹35 Lakh Compensation in Sexual Harassment Case, Fines State ₹5 Lakh for Delay in FIR

"In that event, the concerned Appellate Authority shall decide the same on the merits of the case," the order further directed.

While providing this procedural relief, the Court made it clear that its observations were limited to the procedural aspect and not on the merits of the appeal. It stated:

“Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.”

Title: PINKY ALIAS PINCKY & ANOTHER v. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY & OTHERS