Mere NDPS Accusation Cannot Justify Freezing Explained Assets: SAFEMA

Sonu & Another Vs Competent Authority (Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi)

Mere NDPS Accusation Cannot Justify Freezing Explained Assets—Ancestral House and Loan-Financed Car Released: SAFEMA Tribunal

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 provides the statutory framework for identification, freezing and forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of persons covered by Chapter VA. In the present appeal, the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi considered the freezing of an ancestral residential house and a Tata Nexon car belonging to Sonu and connected assets. The proceedings arose after Himachal Pradesh Police allegedly recovered 157 grams of Chitta/Heroin from Pradeep Kumar, Mohit and Sonu on 02.04.2025, following which FIR No. 0076/2025 was registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Freezing Authority passed an order under Section 68F(1), which was subsequently confirmed by the Competent Authority. Before the Tribunal, the appellants pressed their challenge only in respect of the residential house and Tata Nexon car.

The house was claimed to be ancestral and the valuer recorded that the existing construction was approximately 10 to 12 years old. The Tribunal found that the only material recent expenditure was renovation costing ₹2.68 lakh, which was explained through LIC receipts of ₹3 lakh and ₹1,03,800 received by Pushpa, followed by withdrawal of ₹4 lakh. In respect of the car, the Tribunal considered the actual vehicle cost of ₹8,73,032, including insurance, against the higher value adopted by the SHO, and noted the documented vehicle loan of ₹8.20 lakh and ₹50,000 cash down payment.