Accused under NDPS Act can't seek property release sans proof of legitimate income: HC
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court has ruled that individuals facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot claim the release of seized or frozen properties unless they can clearly prove that such assets—belonging to them or their family members—were not acquired through proceeds of illegal activities.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The court emphasised that the burden of proof lies entirely on the accused to establish a legitimate source of income for acquiring the properties mentioned in the freezing orders, especially when no supporting financial documentation is provided.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar made these observations while hearing a petition filed by Gundumulla Venkataiah, who was booked in two cases by Shadnagar police in Cyberabad in 2024 for the procurement and storage of Alprazolam, a controlled substance.
As per the provisions of the NDPS Act, police had attached 17 immovable properties acquired by Venkataiah and his family between 2018 and 2023. Additionally, they seized several vehicles and froze ₹4 lakh held in various bank accounts.
In his petition, Venkataiah challenged the police action, claiming that he had purchased the properties through income from real estate and agriculture. However, the court found discrepancies in his claims.
As per his income tax returns filed between 2017 and 2023, his total declared income was only ₹35 lakh. The court noted the absence of any concrete evidence to support his claim of involvement in real estate or other businesses.
Consequently, the high court declined to grant any relief regarding the seized assets. However, it directed the trial court concerned to consider any fresh application submitted by the accused to unfreeze funds strictly for family necessities, livelihood, or medical expenses.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Gangster, injured in shootout, also sold drugs to fund weapons
1 2 3 Mohali: Sandeep Kumar , the gangster arrested following a shootout with the Mohali Police's Crime Investigating Agency (CIA) near the administrative complex on June 15, was also a drug dealer who used drug proceeds to fund his cache of weapons, police revealed on Sunday. Sandeep, who was injured in the leg during the encounter and is currently under medical observation, is also wanted by the Himachal Pradesh police under the NDPS Act for drug trafficking . According to officials, he came near the encounter spot to deliver a drug consignment when he opened fire at the police team that had laid a trap based on intelligence inputs. Mohali SSP Harmandeep Singh Hans said, "Sandeep Kumar is a hardened criminal. Apart from multiple murder and attempted murder cases, he is also involved in the drug trade. We have reason to believe that he used drug money to purchase firearms for gang activities. He is also wanted in Himachal Pradesh." The SSP confirmed that one of Sandeep's aides, Babloo, who was arrested from Badaun, Uttar Pradesh, five days ago, had already confessed to their role in the murder of 21-year-old Hemant Kumar in Sector 91 on May 26. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo "Babloo was riding the motorcycle while Sandeep fired the shots. He has also made important disclosures about the gang's modus operandi, including the use of shared and hidden weapons," Hans added. Police sources said the .315 bore weapon used in the Sector 91 murder is yet to be recovered. "Babloo claimed that Sandeep had the murder weapon, but it was not found at the encounter site. We suspect they rotated weapons within the gang and concealed them post each crime," sources added. Police are now planning a face-to-face interrogation of Sandeep and Babloo once the former is fit for questioning. Police believe the interrogation will lead them to the gang's weapon hideouts and possibly to other accomplices involved in narcotics and violent crimes across Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. MSID:: 121888878 413 |
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Hyderabad land dispute: Unauthorised possession with intent to occupy or construct qualifies as land grabbing, says Supreme Court
1 2 3 Hyderabad: Mere unauthorised possession with an intent to occupy or construct qualifies as land grabbing, the Supreme Court observed. The court made the observations while refusing to grant relief to a businessman from the city who was proclaimed a land-grabber for illegally occupying private land in Saroor Nagar. The businessman had moved the Supreme Court challenging the orders of the special court and the Telangana high court evicting him from the 252 square yards of disputed land. Ruling that there was no evidence in support of his claims, the apex court refused to interfere in the high court's orders and dismissed the appeal. The appellant, VSR Mohan Rao, claimed he had lawfully acquired 252 square yards of land through a sale deed in March 1997 and constructed a double-storied building. However, the legal heirs of the original landowner, KSR Murthy, disputed the possession and contended that the property was part of a 555 square yard plot in survey 9 they had purchased through a sale deed registered in 1965. The court-appointed survey commissioner confirmed that the disputed land falls within Survey 9 — not survey 10 as claimed in Mohan Rao's deed. Mohan Rao's earlier civil suits for injunction against the landowner and the municipality were also either dismissed or withdrawn, weakening his claim further, the Supreme Court observed. The Supreme Court further clarified that under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, criminal intent (mens rea) is not necessary to classify an act as land grabbing. The court emphasised that once prima facie ownership is proven by the applicant, the burden of proof shifts to the accused land grabber — which Mohan Rao failed to discharge. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's eviction from the land and deemed the appellant's claim of adverse possession untenable due to lack of evidence.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC grants anticipatory bail to accused in NDPS Act case
: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has allowed anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances( NDPS) Act, 1985. With this, the high court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the state that such relief was barred under Section 438(6) of the CrPC as amended in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that with the repeal of the CrPC and the coming into force of BNSS 2023 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the amended section 482 of the BNSS has superseded the stated amendment. Justice Manish Mathur passed this order recently on an application moved by Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia of Barabanki district seeking anticipatory bail under offence of the NDPS Act. The applicant had earlier been granted anticipatory bail under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A second anticipatory bail application was filed after Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was added to the FIR. The prosecution objected, relying on section 438(6) of the CrPC as amended by U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019, which prohibits anticipatory bail in NDPS and certain other serious offences. The state counsel contended that the U.P. amendment continued to apply in light of the saving clause under Section 531(2)(b) of the BNSS and Section 6A of the general clauses Act, 1897. It was argued that the amendment should be considered a notification or order under a repealed law and was thus saved. The applicant's counsel submitted that the state amendment was a legislative enactment and not protected by section 531(2)(b), and that the field was now occupied exclusively by Section 482 of the BNSS. The court held that the U.P. amendment to Section 438 CrPC, which barred anticipatory bail for NDPS offences, does not survive the repeal of the CrPC and enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court rejected the state's argument that the U.P. amendment could be saved under section 531(2)(b) BNSS or section 6 of the general clauses Act. The court also referred to Article 254(2) of the Constitution, observing that although the U.P. amendment had received Presidential assent, the enactment of Section 482 BNSS, being a central legislation enacted later, would prevail in case of repugnancy. The court said, 'Even in terms of the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there being a considerable difference in the provisions of anticipatory bail between Act No. 4 of 2019 and Section 482 BNSS 2023… it is the provisions of re-enacted Section 482 BNSS 2023, which shall prevail.' Accordingly, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
