Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has affirmed that when properties are seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the responsibility to prove that such assets were not acquired through illicit means rests squarely on the accused.
The court also clarified that, while alternative avenues of appeal are available, High Courts should not directly intervene under Article 226 when such remedies exist.
Background of the case
In a recent case, Gundumalla Venkataiah from Shadnagar filed a petition in the High Court seeking to overturn orders by the Shadnagar police, who had seized his immovable and movable properties in connection with a case registered under the NDPS Act.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar presided over the hearing.
Senior Advocate Vedula Venkataramana, representing the petitioner, argued that police registered a case against Venkataiah on December 25 and in February 2024 seized immovable properties valued at Rs 1 crore and Rs 4 lakh in bank cash.
The petitioner contended that these seizures were invalid since the properties were purchased before the criminal cases were filed.
Govt’s counter
However, government advocate Mahesh Raje countered that Venkataiah faced cases related to the supply of Alprazolam, which he allegedly used for manufacturing illicit liquor, earning substantial illegal income.
As per income tax records, Venkataiah’s legitimate income was only Rs 35 lakhs, yet he had acquired properties worth Rs 1 crore.
Furthermore, despite his wife and children having no discernible income, properties were registered in their names, and large sums were deposited in their bank accounts.
Additional Solicitor General B. Narasimha Sharma, representing the appellate authority, stated that the authority had provided reasons for the property seizure and had confirmed the action only after considering the petitioner’s explanation.
After hearing all arguments, the judge upheld the property seizure, stating that the orders issued by the competent authority could not be interfered with by the High Court at this stage.
The court advised the petitioner to approach the lower court to seek the release of necessary funds for family and medical expenses
