Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs Sohan Singh @ Soni & Others on 20 November, 2025
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. Revision No.835 of 2024 a/w
Cr. Revision No.616 of 2025
Reserved on : 04.11.2025.
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
_____________________________________________________
(1). Cr. Revision No.835 of 2024
of
State of Himachal Pradesh
....Petitioner
Versus
Sohan Singh @ Soni & others
rt ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
(2). Cr. Revision No.616 of 2025
State of Himachal Pradesh
....Petitioner
Versus
Reena Devi
...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s)/State: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, in both the petitions.
For the respondents : Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in Cr.Revision No.835 of 2024 and for the respondent in Cr. Revision No.616 of 2025.
________________________________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 ) Sushil Kukreja, Judge .
Both these revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioner(s)/State under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS) against the impugned orders dated 01.10.2024, passed by the of learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP in Cr.MPs No.1165 & 1166 of 2024.
2. rt It has been averred by the petitioner(s)/State that FIR No.211/23, dated 23.12.2023, under Section 20 & 29 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Jawali against accused Shyam Lal (respondent No.2 in Cr. Revision No.835/2024) on the allegation that charas weighing 1.043 KG was recovered from the vehicle bearing registration No.HP37H-0393 being owned and driven by him. During the course of interrogation, accused Shyam Lal disclosed that he had received the contraband from one Lata Devi (respondent No.3 in Cr. Revision No.835 of 2024), which was to be delivered to Sohan Singh (respondent No.1 in Cr. Revision No.835 of 2024) at place Tikuri.
Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the police arrested accused Sohan Singh on 29.12.2204. Since the recovered contraband had fallen under the category of commercial quantity, ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 ) therefore, financial investigation was carried out in accordance .
with the provisions of Chapter V-A of NDPS Act. During the course of investigation, police had seized the entire properties either registered in the name of accused Sohan Singh or in the name of his wife Reena Devi and his mother Somma Devi under of Section 68 F of NDPS Act. In response to the seizure order, the competent authority had confirmed the same on 11.11.2024. The rt accused Sohan Singh alias Soni and and his wife Reena Devi moved applications (Cr.MP Nos.1166 & 1165 of 2024) under Section 451/467 of Cr.PC for release of the vehicles bearing registration Nos.HP-54C-9575 (Mahindra Pickup), HP-38H-3075 (Tractor) and HP-54D-0130 (Hyundai Venue) alongwith their documents and keys, which were allowed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide orders dated 01.10.2024.
3. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner(s)/State contended that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave illegality while allowing the applications filed by the respondents especially when the financial investigation under Section 68 of NDPS Act was still in progress because as per Section 68 (Q) of NDPS Act, no Civil Court has the jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the appellate Tribunal ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 ) or competent authority is empowered. He further contended that .
the investigating agency had mentioned that on completion of financial investigation under Section 68 of NDPS Act, ceasing and freezing order would be issued and sent for confirmation to the competent authority, New Delhi.
of
4. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General well as the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone rt through the material on record.
5. Perusal of the material available on record reveals that the respondents herein have moved two separate applications under Section 451/457 of Cr.PC for release of the vehicles in question alongwith their documents and keys which applications were opposed by the petitioner-State on the ground that the financial investigation of the accused persons was being carried out under Section 68E of NDPS Act,. However despite the objections raised by the Investigating Agency, the Court below had ordered the release of vehicles bearing registration Nos.HP-54C-9575 (Mahindra Pickup), HP-38H-3075 (Tractor) and HP-54D-0130 (Hyundai Venue) in favour of the respondents alongwith their documents and keys.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 )
6. It would be pertinent to mention here that chapter V-A of .
NDPS Act provides for forfeiture of property which must be derived from or used in illicit traffic. The property Illegally acquired in relation to any person to whom the Chapter applies would mean only such property which was acquired wholly or partly out of of or by means of any income attributable to the contravention of any provision of the Act. It is, therefore, evident that the property rt which is sought to be forfeited must be the one which has a direct nexus with the income, etc. derived by way of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any property acquired therefrom. Direction to forfeiture of a property is in two parts.
Firstly, it has to be identified in terms of Section 68-E of the Act.
For the said purpose, a satisfaction must be arrived at by the authority specified therein to the effect that the person concerned had been holding any illegally acquired property. Secondly, on the basis of such information, he is entitled to take steps for tracing and identifying the property. The authority is also entitled to seize or freeze such a property. The competent authority has a vast power as is provided under Section 68-R of the Act. A link must be found between the property sought to be forfeited and ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 ) the income or assets or properties which were illegally acquired .
by the person concerned.
7. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of Sections 68E and 68F(1) and 68-R of NDPS Act, which read as under:-
of "Section 68E. Identifying illegally acquired property- (1) Every officer empowered under section 53 and every officer-in- charge of a police station shall, or receipt of information is satisfied that any person to whom this Chapter applies holds any illegally acquired property, he may, after recording reasons rt for doing so, proceed to take all steps necessary for tracing and identifying such property.
(2) The steps referred to in sub-section (1) may include any inquiry, investigation or survey in respect of any person, place, property, assets, documents, books of account in any bank or public financial institution or any other relevant matters. (3) Any inquiry, investigation or survey referred to in sub-
section (2) shall be carried out by an officer mentioned in sub- section (1) in accordance with such directions or guidelines as the competent authority may make or issue in this behalf.
Section 68F. Seizure or freezing of illegally acquired property- (1) Where any officer conducting an inquiry or investigation under section 68E has reason to believe that any property in relation to which such inquiry or investigation is being conducted is an illegally acquired property and such property is likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which will result in frustrating any proceeding relating to forfeiture of such property under this Chapter, he may make an order for seizing such property and where it is not practicable to seize such property, he may make an order that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, or of the competent authority and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned. Section 68R. Competent authority and Appellate Tribunal to have powers of civil court.--The competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS
7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 )
(e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed."
.
8. In the case on hand, the perusal of the material on record reveals that on 17.10.2024, the SHO, Police Station concerned had passed an order under Section 68F(1) read with of Section 68E of NDPS Act for seizing and freezing of the movable and immovable properties of accused Sohan Singh @ Soni, Soma Devi (his mother) and Reena Devi (his wife), which order rt included the freezing of vehicles bearing registration number HP-
54C-9575, HP-38H-3075 and HP-54D-0130. The said order was confirmed by the Competent Authority & Administrator SAFEM (FOP) Act & NDPS Act, 1985, Delhi, vide order dated 11.11.2024. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-
"I, Rajendra Kumar, in view of the above findings and in exercise of the power conferred on me by virtue of Section 68F(2) of the Act, hereby confirm the aforesaid Freezing Order No. 2582/5A dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Station House Officer, Police Station: Jawali, District: Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, and further direct that the properties mentioned of the Table of properties in Para 3 above shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, in any manner, except with the prior permission of the under signed."
9. Admittedly, the aforesaid order passed by the Competent Authority has been challenged by both the petitioners i.e. Sohan Singh alias Soni and his wife Reena Devi, before the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 ) Appellate Tribunal, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange .
Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property), Act, 1976, and the same is pending adjudication before it.
10. As observed earlier, perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the Investigating Agency had informed the Court of below that the financial investigation of the accused persons was being carried out, yet the Court below had passed the impugned rt orders of releasing of the vehicles in question. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
"The police/prosecution filed reply to application with the submissions that vehicles No.HP-54C-Tractor No. HP-38H- 3075 9575 Mahindra Pickup and alongwith documents and keys and 32 shuttering steel Gadder, 78 steel channel, 168 steel plates and 2470 wooden supports and bamboo were taken into possession in case FIR No.211/23, dated 23.12.2023, under Section 20, 29 NDPS Act, Police Station, Jawali. Release of vehicles is opposed on the ground that financial investigation of the accused is being carried out under Section 68E, NDPS Act."
11. In the opinion of this Court, once the Investigating Agency had intimated to the Court regarding freezing of the vehicles, then the Court below should not have passed the orders to release the vehicles. Since the vehicles in question have been seized under Chapter V-A of NDPS Act, vide freezing Order No. 2582/5A, dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and the Competent Authority had confirmed the aforesaid Freezing Order ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:39197 ) and further the respondents/accused Sohan Singh @ Soni and .
his wife Reena Devi have already availed their statutory remedy by filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 68- O(1) of NDPS Act, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Court below deserve to be quashed and set aside.
of
12. In view of the above discussion, both the present revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated rt 01.10.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP in Cr.MPs No.1165 & 1166 of 2024 are quashed and set aside.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja )
November 20, 2025 Judge
(V.Himalvi)
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:40:34 :::CIS