TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petition filed by the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as there is no challenge to the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 and in any case it was sent for confirmation to the competent authority on 31.10.2019 by the IO. The competent authority had 30 days time to either confirm or decline the freezing order but the petitioner came running to the court without laying any challenge to the present order dated 30.10.2019. The petition is not maintainable as there being no challenge to the freezing order dated 30.10.2019, so the same is dismissed. However, since the proceedings have been stayed by virtue of the order dated 05.11.2019, so the time for completion of the proceedings by the competent authority as per provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account of wife of Petitioner once the Freezing order bearing no VIII/07/DZU/2019-1398 dated 22/05/19 for freezing bank account no 18381131000527 of the Petitioner was not confirmed by the Competent Authority as stipulated under Section 68 F(2) of NDPS Act. 3. On 05.11.2019 the respondent was directed not to take any action on notice bearing F.No.CA/DL/NDPS/51/19-20/1960 dated 31.10.2019 issued by the competent authority. 4. Thereafter the respondent moved CRL. M.A. 43014/2019 seeking clarification/modification of the order dated 05.11.2019. It is averred in the application that the present writ petition was filed to challenge the letter dated 22.05.2019 issued by the intelligence officer of the respondent (hereinafter called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng No. VIII/07/DZU/2019-1398 dated 22.05.2019 whereas the account was not freezed by virtue of the said order and the bank was only directed to stop outgoing transactions as the proceedings to freeze the said account were in progress. It is averred that as the said account contained illegally acquired money so the IO had freezed the account of the petitioner vide order dated 30.10.2019 which is not under challenge in this writ petition. It is averred that the issuance of the notice dated 31.10.2019 by the competent authority was on account of freezing of the account of the petitioner vide freezing order dated 30.10.2019. It is stated that in view of this, the petition is infructous and not maintainable as the order dated 22.05.2019 was only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The perusal of the letter dated 22.05.2019 shows that this is an intimation to the manager of the OBC in regard to the above said account requesting him to immediately stop outgoing transactions from this account. The freezing order has been passed by the IO on 30.10.2019 which was to be sent for confirmation to the concerned competent authority as stipulated U/s 68 F(2) of NDPS Act which was accordingly sent by the IO on 31.10.2019 to the competent authority for confirming or declining the said freezing order and the time prescribed for this procedure is 30 days as per section 68 F(2) of the NDPS Act. The petition filed by the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as there is no challenge to the freezing order dated 30.10.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
