The Petitioner, the wife of Manjit Singh, the primary accused in a drug trafficking case, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the defreezing of a bank account held in the name of her business, M/s. Allied Air Express. The account had been frozen by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in connection with an investigation involving her husband, who was accused of illegal export of psychotropic substances. The freezing of the bank account was based on the suspicion that the funds in the account were derived from illegal activities, particularly drug trafficking.

The main legal provision at issue is Section 68-F of the NDPS Act, 1985, which deals with the seizure and freezing of illegally acquired property. According to Section 68-F(1), an officer empowered to conduct investigations under the Act may freeze or seize property if it is suspected to be illegally acquired and likely to be concealed or transferred in a way that would frustrate the forfeiture proceedings. However, this order must be confirmed by the Competent Authority within 30 days, as stipulated in Section 68-F(2). If the order is not confirmed, it becomes void after the expiration of this period.

The Petitioner argued that the DRI's freezing order had lapsed because it had not been confirmed by the Competent Authority within the prescribed 30-day period. She contended that as per Section 68-F(2), the freezing order had no legal effect beyond that timeframe. Despite this, the DRI resisted her application, claiming that the account was exclusively controlled by her husband, the prime accused in the case, and therefore the money in the account was illegally acquired, making the Petitioner ineligible to reclaim it.

After careful consideration, the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements outlined in Section 68-F(2) of the NDPS Act. The Court found that the freezing order had indeed lapsed because it was not confirmed within 30 days by the Competent Authority, making it legally invalid. The Court underscored that the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions under the law could not be overlooked, as they are designed to protect an individual’s constitutional right to property.

The Court also rejected the DRI's argument that the Petitioner had disowned the account and therefore could not claim it. The Court held that the ownership of the account, even if disputed, was secondary to the procedural requirement of confirming the freezing order within the statutory time frame.

Statutory Compliance is Imperative: The ruling reinforces the constitutional and legal importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions. In cases where property is being seized or frozen under the NDPS Act, the confirmation of the freezing order by the Competent Authority within 30 days is mandatory. Failure to do so renders the order null and void.

Protection of Property Rights: While the NDPS Act is aimed at curbing illegal activities such as drug trafficking, the Court highlighted that property rights are still constitutionally protected. Thus, deprivation of property must be in strict accordance with the law.

Role of Writ Jurisdiction: The Court clarified that even though disputed facts related to ownership might exist, writ jurisdiction can still be invoked to challenge the validity of a freezing order, especially when procedural safeguards are not followed.

Importance of Timely Confirmation: The ruling serves as a reminder that the time-bound nature of Section 68-F(2) is not a mere formality but a substantive right that must be respected. This ensures that individuals are not deprived of their property without adequate legal scrutiny.

The case highlights the balance that the legal system strives to maintain between enforcing laws to combat drug trafficking and protecting individuals' rights to their property. While the provisions of the NDPS Act are stringent, especially in matters involving the forfeiture of illegally acquired assets, they must be followed meticulously to ensure that constitutional rights are not infringed. This judgment reaffirms the critical importance of adhering to legal procedures in the enforcement of laws under the NDPS Act, particularly in cases where property is at stake.