CWP-28451-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No.123 CWP-28451-2026 Decided on:03.09.2026 Krishan Sharma and another . . . Petitioners Versus Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and others . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Gautam Kumar (Hisarwale), Advocate and Mr. Amit Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hisarwale), Senior Public Prosecutor with Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vinayak Atri, Advocate and Mr. Amrit Kashyap, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the freezing order no.428-5A dated 21.03.2022, Annexure P-5, passed by respondent no.3/Station House Officer (SHO), whereby the properties and bank accounts of the petitioners were seized and frozen, as also the order dated 18.04.2022, Annexure P-6, passed by respondent no.2/competent Authority and Administrator, to the extent the freezing order has been confirmed with respect to the properties at serial no.1, 2 and 4, as well as the order dated 18.09.2025, Annexure P-8, passed by respondent no.1/Appellate MEHAK HURIA 2026.09.11 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-28451-2026 -2- Tribunal for Forfeited Property under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (NDPS) Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has wrongly declined to release the properties and bank account of the petitioners in ICICI Bank. The order passed by the SHO was on the assumption that petitioner no.1 was a marginal farmer owing only 2.5 acres of agricultural land, whereas total land falling to his share is five acres which is established from Asmai Malkan, Annexure P-12. It is also contended that his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2009-10 has not been taken into account which shows the total income of petitioner no.1 is ₹3,02,280. Accordingly, the order needs to be set aside and the properties be released. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, however, contends that all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case have been duly considered by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 18.09.2025. It has been rightly concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that the properties in question had no relation with the proceeds of the crime. The documents referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners were never produced before the authorities below and therefore cannot be taken into account at this stage. However, the petitioners would still have an opportunity to lead evidence at the stage of forfeiture proceedings under Section 68 H of the NDPS Act. 4. Considering the submissions, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 as it is well reasoned and has been passed after due consideration of the relevant documents/facts. A reference can be made to the following extract of the order: 5. After hearing the rival submissions, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the same. In the present case, FIR MEHAK HURIA 2026.09.11 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-28451-2026 -3- was registered against Appellant no. 1 Krishan Sharma on 19.12.2012. The house in question mentioned at serial no. 1 was admittedly purchased in the same year i.e. 26.03.2012 for sum of Rs. 7,86,000/- and the payments for the same were made by him on 21.10.2011 and 26.03.2012. The plea of taking loan from his uncles, Ram Kumar and Pershottam Sharma to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- on 18.11.2011 & 75,000/- on 19.10.2011 respectively is apparently false & incorrect in absence of bank transaction and the corresponding evidence regarding their creditworthiness. Appellant has not filed his bank statement for the period of six years prior to the registration of FIR. Hence, in absence of any reliable evidence property at S.No.1 is apparently derived from proceeds of crime. Simply because criminal appeal is pending against the judgment of conviction, the freezing order cannot be challenged, being an emergent proceeding to protect the property to save it from being dissipated, in case of forfeiture proceedings. The forfeiture proceedings will ensue, if the said judgment of conviction attains finality, in case appeal is dismissed. With respect to property at S. No.2 ICICI Bank A/c, the appellant has not clarified when this account was opened and bank statement for the period of six years prior to the registration of FIR. With respect to property at S.No.4 Activa Scooty HR- 01AQ-3282, the same was clearly purchased on 12.05.2017. There is nothing on record that said Scooty was purchased from any proceeds of crime, seeing the fact that appellant Krishan Kumar is not involved in any other NDPS case, after registration of case FIR no.565/2012. 6. In sequel to our discussion in the preceding para, the present appeal is hereby dismissed qua the properties at S.No.1 & 2 and allowed qua the property at S.No.4. At the stage of Forfeiture proceeding U/s 68 H of the NDPS Act, 1985, if any, both the sides are at liberty to lead their respective evidence with MEHAK HURIA 2026.09.11 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-28451-2026 -4- copies to each other qua the properties at S.No. 1 & 2. Property at S.No. 4 be released. 5. Further, the documents referred to by the learned counsel do not in any manner establish that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority are required to be interfered with. The ITR is for the assessment year 2009-10 and will have no bearing on the facts of the case. Besides, the part of property stated to have come to the petitioners’ share has to be established as a matter of fact before the authorities concerned and it cannot be ascertained merely on the basis of documents being referred to for the first time before this Court. The findings arrived at can also not be imputed based upon the documents subsequently produced. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and it is hereby dismissed. As already observed in the impugned order, the petitioners will be at liberty to lead evidence at the stage of forfeiture proceedings under Section 68 H of the NDPS Act. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 03.09.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2026.09.11 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment