1 2025:CGHC:5155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 350 of 2025 Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Munna Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Lavan P.S. Lavan District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1-Superintendent Of Police District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Lavan District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate appears along with Ms. Vaisali Jeswani, Advocate For State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the legality of notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by the Police Station Lavan, District Baloda Bazaar, Bhatapara (C.G.) upon the petitioner under Section 68(F) of the NDPS Act, 1985 to produce his Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Bank Passbook, details of movable and immovable property including those of his family members without assigning any reasons. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that the petitioner namely Haseena Sahu submitted a written complaint on 02.03.2022 in the office 2 of Respondent no. 1/SP, Baloda Bazaar alleging that during a marriage ceremony, the officeeers of respondent no. 2 asked her to open the gate of the house and conducted a raid by stating that there is contraband narcotic that is Cannabis in the house. Thereafter she was called by officer of Police Station namely Bhim Kumar Son, Sanjeev Rajput, Shiv Rajeshri who demanded Rs. 8 lakhs from her against the release of her husband namely Shiv Kumar Sahu, then she came to know that a case of NDPS has been registered against her husband, Shiv Sahu. Further on 21.02.2022 she handed over Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the constable Shiv Rajetri, on 25.02.2022 Rs. 4.5 lakhs were given to the same officer. On 27.01.2022 the police called the husband and arrested him in the said case. Statement of the complainant was recorded in which she deposed identically. Inquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dist- Baloda Bazaar, Bhatapara against the police officers in which they were exonerated from the charges. Thereafter respondent no. 2 has issued a notice dated 18.01.2025 in which the petitioner has called upon by the respondent no. 2 to submit Aadhar Card, Pan Card, details of Bank Passbook, and other details of immovable and movable property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner particularly raised their two most important contentions. The first and foremost contention so raised by the counsel for the petitioner is regarding the impugned notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by respondent no. 2 which according to them is without authority of law and not sustainable and the second important contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions 3 of Section 68E of the NDPS Act, specific procedure is required to be followed by the Police officials while passing orders for issuance of notice, freezing the bank accounts or ceasing property of the accused under the NDPS Act and in the absence of the following said procedure, the entire proceedings are actuated with malice and are unconstitutional, arbitrary and void ab initio. Thus he pleads to allow the present petition and quash the notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by Respondent no. 2 to the Petitioner in the interest of justice. In order to substantiate his contentions he stated the finding recorded in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Aslam Mohammad Merchant Vs. Competent Authority and Others (2008(14) SCC 186). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned which is that when charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court and the case is fixed for recording of evidence and ten witnesses have already been examined before the trial court, therefore , the concerned authority has no right to issue notice against the petitioner. However, in the considered opinion of this court when charge sheet has been filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, 1973, there is no bar for the concerned police authority to further investigate 4 the matter and forward the final report to the Magistrate. 7. However, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, which pertains to the fact that before issuance of notice to the petitioner under Section 68(F) of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Officer has not complied with the provisions of Section 68 (E) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Section 68 (E) of NDPS Act, 1985 provides as under:- Every Officer empowered under Section 53 and every officer-in- charge of a police station shall, on receipt of information is satisfied that any person to whom this Chapter applies holds any illegally acquired property, he may, after recording reasons 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. 8. On perusal of the notice issued to the petitioner as well as section 68E of NDPS Act, it is crystal clear that police officer has issued show cause notice to the petitioner and directed him to produce some documents relating to property, which in the considered opinion of this court is according to the norms of natural justice. Even in the case of aslam Mohammad and Merchant Vs. Competent Authority and Others(supra) ti was held that before passing of final order/judgment by the concerned authority issuance of show cause notice is required. In the present case 5 there has been no final order or judgment passed by the concerned authority and only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner which is in accordance with the norms of natural justice, therefore this court finds that the present petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed. However, petitioner has a right to raise all his grievances before the concerned authority and the same shall be decided the objection in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Alfiza