Statutory Limitation for NDPS Appeals Cannot Be Condoned or Bypassed Through Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226

In July 2022, the NIA registered a case following the seizure of 102.784 kg of heroin

Investigation revealed that funds from drug sales were routed through the bank account of ‘Sandhu Tour and Travel’, owned by the Petitioner, a suspected Hawala operator

On 20.10.2022, NIA searched the Petitioner’s premises and seized ₹1,34,12,000/- in cash

On 08.11.2023, a freezing order was passed under Section 68F(1) of the NDPS Act, which was confirmed by the Competent Authority on 07.12.2023

The Petitioner challenged this before the Appellate Tribunal with a 250-day delay, which the Tribunal dismissed on 05.11.2024 for lack of jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory limit of 60 days

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone a statutory delay in filing an appeal that exceeds the maximum limit prescribed under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the freezing order and subsequent confirmation are void ab initio due to non-compliance with the 48-hour reporting mandate under the proviso to Section 68F of the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 68-O of the NDPS Act, which mandates that an appeal must be filed within 45 days, with an extension limited to a maximum of 60 days upon showing sufficient cause

It relied on the principle that "an appeal is a creature of statute," as established in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh

Article 226 cannot be used to circumvent or revive a statutory remedy extinguished by limitation (Omaxe Buildhome Limited v. Union of India)

Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. regarding the exhaustion of alternative remedies

The Court reasoned that the NDPS Act provides a specific, time-bound appellate mechanism under Section 68-O, leaving the Tribunal with no discretion to condone a 250-day delay

It rejected the Petitioner's plea for writ intervention, holding that a litigant who disables themselves from a statutory remedy through their own negligence cannot seek to resurrect that right via Article 226

Regarding the procedural challenge to the initial seizure, the Court noted that while Section 68F requires swift reporting, the NIA initially seized the cash under Section 102 of the CrPC during a UAPA investigation, only invoking NDPS provisions after financial nexus was established

The Court found that any initial procedural irregularities were cured because the Petitioner was subsequently given a full hearing during the confirmation proceedings but failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove the legitimate source of the cash

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to bypass statutory limitation periods

It further concluded that since the Petitioner failed to approach the Court with promptitude and failed to explain the source of the funds during confirmation proceedings, no relief was warranted

Final Order: Petition dismissed