M/S.Ksm Clothing Company v. Inspector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.4930 of 2024 M/s.KSM Clothing Company, Rep. by its Partner, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Having registered office at 991/55C, Boyampalayam PN Road, Tiruppur District, Tamil Nadu-641 602.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madurai Sub Zone, Department of Internal Security, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
(R1 is substituted vide order dated 06.03.2024 by this Court) 2.Yes Bank, Rep., by its Branch Manager, Part Ground Floor, Plot No.266, Balamurugan Complex, Avinashi Road, Tiruppur-641 602.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to F.No.48/1/19/2023/NCB/MDS/15 dated 18.01.2024 passed 1/4
by the 1st Respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner firm bearing account No. 048463400002677.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhaya Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindaraj DSGI for R1 : Mr.V.Veerapandi for M/s.Vastax Association for R2
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner's bank account was frozen in view of the impugned communication dated 18.01.2024 issued by the Inspector, NCB, Madurai. Notice was issued and the learned DSGI submitted that sensitive information was intercepted by NCB and the impugned communication came to be passed. I wanted to know the nature of the suspicious transaction. The learned DSGI submitted that a sum of Rs.9,300/- was ordered to be deposited in the petition mentioned account on 16.10.2023.
3. I am clearly of the view that while lien can be marked on the said amount involved in the said suspicious transaction, no purpose will be served 2/4
by freezing the account itself. In any event, Section 68 (f)(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985 would come to the petitioner's rescue. It reads that an order freezing the account shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the competent authority within a period of 30 days of its being made. In this case, the competent authority has not passed any confirmation order within 30 days. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not at all put on notice. I am clearly of the view that the petitioner's account has to be defreezed. Without interfering with the impugned order, since it has become ineffective, the second respondent is directed to defreeze the petition mentioned account.
4. The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.03.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 26.03.2024 3/4
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi 25.03.2024 4/4