9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Maintainability of appeals filed by the Intelligence Officer against the orders of the competent authority under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. - Interpretation of the term "person aggrieved" under section 68-O of the Act. - Whether the Intelligence Officer or the Narcotics Control Bureau can be considered a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of the Act. Analysis: The judgment pertains to three appeals filed by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, against orders of the competent authority under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant had passed orders under section 68-F(1) directing the seizure of properties of affected persons, which were subsequently found ineffective by the competent authority. The affected persons and the competent authority raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the appeals, arguing that the appellant, being a subordinate, cannot question the orders of the superior authority. The appellant contended that he is a person aggrieved as he is bound to safeguard the State's interests and directed the freezing of properties found to be illegally acquired. The key issue revolved around whether the appellant was a "person aggrieved" within the Act. The appellant argued that as an officer empowered to investigate under the Act, he had identified the properties as illegally acquired and passed freezing orders under section 68-F(1). However, the freezing orders were rendered ineffective by the competent authority's decisions. Section 68-O allows any person aggrieved by the competent authority's order to prefer an appeal, raising the question of whether the appellant qualified as a person aggrieved. The Supreme Court precedent in Mohd. Sharfuddin v. R. P. Singh was cited, emphasizing that a subordinate officer without statutory duties to appear before the superior officer cannot be equated to a party in a lis. The Tribunal analyzed the scheme of the NDPS Act, noting that the Investigating Officer's role is limited to investigation and passing freezing orders, with no obligation to appear before the competent authority or engage further. Referring to the case law of Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, it was established that in the absence of statutory provisions for disputes between parties, the defeated party is considered aggrieved. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that neither the Intelligence Officer nor the Narcotics Control Bureau qualified as a "person aggrieved" under section 68-O due to the Act's scheme and the lack of statutory duties post-investigation. In conclusion, the Tribunal highlighted a lacuna in the NDPS Act concerning rectification of incorrect orders by the competent authority and the absence of provisions for questioning such orders in appeal. The Tribunal expressed the need for parliamentary attention to address these deficiencies but dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, emphasizing that neither the Intelligence Officer nor the Bureau could be considered "persons aggrieved" within the Act's framework.
|
