Click the Play button to listen to article

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the police cannot lock or seal a building permanently on the apprehension that the owner might manufacture or sell illegal drugs in the future.

The Court said that such preventive sealing, in the absence of an existing violation and lawful statutory authority, violates Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar made the observation while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman whose property had been sealed by the police in connection with a case involving the alleged recovery of illegal cough syrups, narcotic substances and equipment.

The Court thus set aside the trial court's order rejecting her application for release of the property. The Court directed the Trial Court to decide the application afresh, in the light of the observations made by the High Court and in accordance with law.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the revisionist challenged a May 2025 order passed by the Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, rejecting her application seeking release of the seized immovable property.

Her counsel submitted that she was neither named in the FIR nor an accused in the case and was the owner of the disputed premises.

It was argued that the police had unlawfully sealed the property under the pretext of exercising search and seizure powers under the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; however, neither statute authorised such action.

It was further submitted that the police raided and sealed the premises on July 8, 2023, based on machines found there. However, even after more than 2 years, the authorities had neither removed the machines nor released the property to its rightful owner.

The State, on the other hand, opposed the plea as it submitted that there was no illegality in the trial court's order. It contended that the premises had been seized on the apprehension that they might be misused in the future.

High Court's observations

The High Court noted that the revisionist was neither named in the FIR nor was a charge-sheet filed against her. It was also not disputed that she was the owner of the disputed property.

The Court further noted that, after investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet for offences punishable under the IPC and the NDPS Act, but not under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The Court observed that the state could not point out any provision under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the NDPS Act or the CrPC under which the property could be sealed for an indefinite period on the ground that the offence might be repeated.

It noted that under Sections 22(1)(c) and 22(2A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the concerned Inspector is empowered to direct a person not to dispose of the stock of drugs for a period of twenty days.

However, no provision of the Act authorising the sealing of immovable property in connection with an offence under the statute was brought to the Court's notice.

With regard to Section 42(1)(c) of the NDPS Act, the Court noted that drugs or substances and all materials used in their manufacture may be seized, along with any other article, animal or conveyance liable to confiscation.

It also referred to Section 63, which provides for an order of confiscation in specified circumstances, and Section 68F, which provides for seizure or freezing of illegally acquired property where the officer concerned forms the requisite opinion and follows the prescribed procedure.

However, the Court noted that nothing had been brought on record to show that the property was sealed in compliance with any provision of the NDPS Act or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court observed that the general power of the police to seize property under Section 102 CrPC/Section 106 BNSS, does not include the power to attach, lock or seal immovable property on the mere suspicion of an offence.

The Court observed thus:

"No provision was brought to the notice of the Court that empowers an Inspector to lock or seal a building permanently on the apprehension that the owner might manufacture or sell illegal drugs in the future".

It further held that sealing of property may be a temporary measure, but it cannot be permanent in nature unless permitted under law.

In the present case, the Court found that the trial court had rejected the release application solely on the ground that the property might be misused in future.

It held that, in the absence of any evidence showing that the property had been permanently sealed under a provision of law authorising such action, it could not be kept permanently sealed merely on the apprehension that the offence might be repeated in future.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal revision while setting aside the trial court's order and directed it to decide the revisionist's application for release of the property afresh, in the light of the observations made by the High Court and in accordance with law, expeditiously.

Tags: