Court dismisses petition challenging bank account freeze under NDPS Act, emphasizes legal procedures.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the freezing of a bank account under the NDPS Act as the freezing order was not contested. It held that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to defreeze the account without confirmation by the Competent Authority. The court extended the time for confirming the freezing order by 25 days to comply with the NDPS Act, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. The petitioner's allegations of misrepresentation in obtaining a stay order were not upheld, and the stay order was extended for the competent authority to complete the confirmation process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to freezing of bank account under NDPS Act.
2. Jurisdiction of Special Judge to defreeze bank account.
3. Misrepresentation in obtaining stay order.
4. Extension of time for confirming freezing order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to freezing of bank account under NDPS Act
The petitioner sought directions for defreezing a bank account frozen during a Narcotic Control Bureau case. The respondent had issued a letter to the bank to stop outgoing transactions from the account. The petitioner challenged this letter, alleging misrepresentation in obtaining a stay order. However, the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 by the investigating officer (IO) was not challenged in the petition. The IO had frozen the account under NDPS Act provisions, and the order was sent for confirmation to the competent authority as required by law. The court held that since the freezing order was not challenged, the petition was not maintainable, and it was dismissed.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Special Judge to defreeze bank account
The petitioner contended that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for defreezing the bank account once the freezing order was not confirmed by the Competent Authority. The court noted that the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 was sent for confirmation to the competent authority on 31.10.2019, as mandated by the NDPS Act. The petitioner's failure to challenge this freezing order rendered the petition infructuous. The court emphasized that the Special Judge's jurisdiction was subject to the proper legal procedures, including confirmation of freezing orders by the Competent Authority.

Issue 3: Misrepresentation in obtaining stay order
The respondent had obtained a stay order on the basis of a notice dated 31.10.2019, which the petitioner alleged was procured by misrepresentation. The court found that the petitioner had not challenged the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 and the notice of the competent authority dated 31.10.2019. As the freezing order was not contested, the court held that the petition was not maintainable, and the stay order was extended to allow the competent authority to conclude the confirmation process.

Issue 4: Extension of time for confirming freezing order
The petitioner requested an extension of time for the competent authority to confirm or decline the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 due to the stay order. The court granted an extension of 25 days from the date of disposal of the petition to allow the competent authority the full 30 days as prescribed under the NDPS Act to decide on the freezing order. The petition and related application were disposed of with these directions.

---