Facts of the Case

Raju Bhai Patel and Zala Narendrasingh Harubha filed connected writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking release of Rs. 1,58,75,050 in cash seized from the courier business premises of one of the petitioners, run under the name M/s Patel Kanu Bai Kanti Lal & Co. in New Delhi, which held GST registration and other statutory compliances.

The cash had been seized during a raid on 21.02.2023 by a team of the National Investigating Agency (NIA), which was investigating the bomb explosion at the Ludhiana Court Complex on 23.12.2021 (FIR No. RC-01/2022/NIA/DLI) under provisions of the IPC, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The petitioner contended the seizure was procedurally defective — no seizure memo was prepared at the spot, and no order under Section 25 of the UAPA confirming or extending the seizure within 48 hours was passed — and that the money had been deposited with the courier by various clients.

The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union respondents, clarified that a seizure memo had in fact been prepared and submitted to the Special Court, Mohali on 22.02.2023, and that the petitioners could seek release of the money before that Special Court; the matter had also been reported to the Income Tax Department for appropriate action.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the seizure of Rs. 1,58,75,050 during the NIA investigation was procedurally invalid for want of a contemporaneous seizure memo and an order under Section 25 of the UAPA within 48 hours.
  2. Whether the appropriate forum for seeking release of the seized cash was the High Court in writ jurisdiction, or the Special Court seized of the NIA investigation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No seizure memo was prepared at the spot or at the time of the raid, and no order under Section 25 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, confirming or extending the seizure within 48 hours, had been passed, rendering the continued retention of the cash unlawful.
  • The seized amount represented money deposited by various clients with the petitioner's courier business and was not connected to the offences under investigation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the seizure had in fact been accompanied by a seizure memo, which was submitted to the Special Court, Mohali, on 22.02.2023, and that the petitioners could move an appropriate application before that Special Court for release of the money.
  • It was also stated that the recovery had already been reported to the Income Tax Department for appropriate action in accordance with law.

Court Order / Findings

  • In light of the statement made by the Additional Solicitor General, learned counsel for the petitioners chose not to press the petitions further at this stage, opting instead to approach the Special Court, Mohali, for release of the seized amount.
  • The Court disposed of the petitions as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners to move the Special Court, and directed that an expeditious decision be taken on any such application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
  • No finding was recorded on whether the seizure itself was procedurally valid or on the petitioners' entitlement to the money — those questions were left for the Special Court to decide.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide the validity of the seizure or the petitioners' claim to the money — the petitions were simply disposed of as not pressed once it was confirmed that a proper seizure memo existed and that the Special Court, Mohali, was the appropriate forum. GST registration is mentioned only as one detail establishing the courier business's bona fides; it plays no role in the Court's reasoning, and this is not a GST case.

Sections Involved

  • Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 15, 16, 18 and 25 (seizure procedure)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 124-A and 120-B
  • Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3, 4 and 5
  • Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Sections 3 and 4

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of as not pressed at the petitioners' own request, without any decision on the merits of the seizure; the petitioners were left free to seek release of the cash before the Special Court, Mohali.

Case Details

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CWP-11659-2023 with connected CWP-12613-2023 (Raju Bhai Patel v. Union of India and Ors.; Zala Narendrasingh Harubha v. Union of India and Ors.). Neutral Citation 2023:PHHC:111492. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj. Decided on 24.08.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.