Madras High Court

Madras HC: Ramzan Beevi's Battle Over ₹32.84 Lakh Seized as Alleged Drug Proceeds

Updated
Mar 1, 2026 11:26 AM
madras-hc-ramzan-beevis-battle-over-3284-lakh-seized-as-alleged-drug-proceeds

Quick Summary: In a gripping courtroom saga, Ramzan Beevi battles to reclaim a large amount of cash taken from her home, linked to her husband Rafiq Nasar's alleged drug activities. Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court considers the legality and rightful ownership of the money.

The Case Unfolds: Seizure and Arrest

On May 13, 2023, authorities found 2 kilograms of methamphetamine at the home of Ramzan Beevi’s husband, Rafiq Nasar, in Chennai. The next day, he was arrested under various rules of the NDPS Act. During the investigation, a substantial amount of cash, ₹32,84,000, was taken from their home.

"Ramzan Beevi asked for the return of the cash under Section 497 of the BNSS, saying that the cash belonged to her..."

The Claim: Money for a Daughter's Wedding

Ramzan Beevi argued that the money was meant for her daughter's wedding, provided by her brothers and relatives. However, the Special Judge dismissed her request, doubting the truth of this explanation.

The Defense: Property Sale and Cash Gifts

Beevi’s lawyer, Mr. C.S. Saravanan, claimed the money came from her brothers, who sold a property in March 2023. They supposedly gave the cash for wedding expenses, asserting it wasn't "illegal money."

The Prosecution's Stand: Proceeds of Crime

The Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. N.P. Kumar, argued that the large sum was linked to drug dealings. The cash was put into a fixed deposit following the trial judge's order, emphasizing its suspicious nature.

"The story of Ramzan Beevi that her brothers gave the said amount as cash for her daughter's marriage expenses is highly unlikely..."

Legal Loopholes: Court's Observations

Justice Sunder Mohan noted procedural inconsistencies. Although properties were frozen under Section 68-F (1) of the NDPS Act, no such order was made for the cash. The Court suggested that the authorities had not followed the correct legal steps.

The Verdict: A Conditional Path Forward

On February 24, 2026, Justice Mohan decided not to return the cash immediately. Instead, he allowed the authorities three weeks to justify the seizure under Section 68-F of the NDPS Act. If they fail, Ramzan Beevi could reclaim the money by providing a bond and a written statement.

"The method used by the Union of India is not in accordance with the law..."

The Conclusion: Awaiting a Final Decision

The court's ruling provides a temporary resolution, leaving the door open for Ramzan Beevi to prove her claim. The next steps will depend on the authorities' actions within the given time.

Tags:
Drugs and Cosmetics Act
Criminal Law
Property Rights