Freezing assets only interim step, not forfeiture: Cal HC in NDPS case

Kolkata: Freezing assets is a preliminary step and not a final forfeiture, the Calcutta High Court observed while refusing to stay the seizure of properties alleged to be linked to narcotics trafficking.

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh delivered the order while dismissing a petition filed by an accused and his family members against the police action.

On August 25, Jibantala Police Station ordered the freezing of properties said to belong to one of the accused in a 2014 narcotics case. The following day, the competent authority issued an intimation for a personal hearing. The petitioners approached the High Court claiming the seizure was illegal, premature, and based largely on the statement of a co-accused. They also argued that the alleged offences did not cross the statutory threshold needed to invoke forfeiture provisions.

The judge noted that the officer-in-charge had placed on record reasons for the seizure. These included references to income-tax returns, bank records and a detainee’s confession. Taken together, these documents provided, on the face of the record, a prima facie basis to believe the properties could be proceeds of narcotics offences.

Justice Ghosh underlined the difference between freezing and forfeiture. Freezing, he said, is a temporary enforcement measure requiring confirmation by the competent authority, while forfeiture follows only after statutory proceedings are completed. At this stage, the scope of judicial review is narrow. Courts may interfere only when there is no supporting material, where the authority has clearly failed to apply its mind, or when the freeze causes disproportionate hardship.

Applying this test, the court found no apparent error and declined to grant an interim stay. However, the judge clarified that the petitioners remain entitled to participate in the confirmation proceedings, press their objections before the competent authority, and approach the court again if they can show irreparable harm.

The ruling keeps the freeze in place until the statutory confirmation process is concluded.