1998 (1) TMI 490 - AT - FEMA

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for forfeiture under proviso to section 68C(2) of the NDPS Act.
2. Validity of forfeiture of properties belonging to Roopa Rai.
3. Legitimacy of properties acquired between 1953 and 1955.
4. Legitimacy of properties acquired in 1982.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for Forfeiture:
The first issue revolves around the limitation period prescribed under the proviso to section 68C(2) of the NDPS Act. The appellants contended that properties acquired prior to six years from the date of detention (April 4, 1990) should not be forfeited. The Tribunal clarified that the six-year limitation applies only to persons "charged for an offence" and not to those detained under the PITNDPS Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the plain reading of the statute does not allow for the inclusion of detained persons within the limitation period exception, as the legislative intent was to treat traffickers under preventive detention differently due to the serious nature of their activities.

2. Validity of Forfeiture of Properties Belonging to Roopa Rai:
The second issue pertains to the forfeiture of properties in the name of Roopa Rai. The appellants argued that Roopa Rai's marriage to the detenu was void, and thus her properties should not be forfeited. The Tribunal noted that Roopa Rai had consistently identified herself as the detenu's wife in various legal documents. The Tribunal invoked the presumption of a valid marriage based on long cohabitation and mutual acknowledgment as husband and wife. Additionally, the Tribunal held that even if the marriage was invalid, Roopa Rai would still fall under the definition of "associate" under section 68A(2) of the NDPS Act, making her properties liable for forfeiture.

3. Legitimacy of Properties Acquired Between 1953 and 1955:
The third issue concerns the properties acquired between 1953 and 1955. The appellants argued that these properties could not be illegally acquired as the detenu was only 5-7 years old during that period. The Tribunal directed the appellants to correlate the documents with the properties claimed to be acquired during this period. Upon review, the competent authority concluded that the documents did not match the properties listed for forfeiture. However, the Tribunal, after perusing the relevant documents, found that the properties were indeed acquired during the specified period and could not have been acquired through illicit means by the detenu due to his young age. Thus, the properties listed at S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11 were not liable for forfeiture.

4. Legitimacy of Properties Acquired in 1982:
The fourth issue involves properties acquired in 1982, which were in the names of the detenu and his brothers. The appellants claimed these properties were acquired through legitimate means, such as ancestral properties and business earnings. However, they failed to provide documentary evidence to support their claims. The competent authority detailed the detenu's involvement in illegal activities, including narcotic trafficking, and concluded that the properties were illegally acquired. The Tribunal upheld the forfeiture of properties listed at S. Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9, as the appellants did not demonstrate legitimate sources of income for their acquisition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded:
(a) The six-year limitation period under proviso to section 68C(2) does not apply to persons detained under the PITNDPS Act.
(b) The NDPS Act provisions are applicable to Roopa Rai.
(c) Properties listed at S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11, acquired between 1953 and 1955, are not liable for forfeiture.
(d) Properties listed at S. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 have been correctly forfeited.

The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →