9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of Chapter VA of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to the appellant. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the freezing order issued by the Competent Authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the applicability of Chapter VA of the NDPS Act to her, arguing that she is neither a detenu nor an associate of the detenu, thus her properties should not be forfeited. The Competent Authority contended that the frozen properties were acquired from illegal earnings of the detenu and Nitin Khimji Bhanushali, standing in their names. The Tribunal found that if a nexus between the detenu's illegal earnings and the appellant's properties is established, Chapter VA would apply. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention, stating that the provisions of Chapter VA could be applicable based on evidence linking the appellant's properties to the detenu's illegal activities. 2. The appellant raised concerns about the violation of natural justice principles as she was not given an opportunity to defend herself before the freezing order was issued. The Competent Authority argued that no specific notice provision existed under section 68F but maintained that the appellant had the chance to show cause against forfeiture under section 68H. The Tribunal emphasized the integrated procedure outlined in sections 68E, 68F, 68G, and 68H, providing for identification, investigation, freezing, and forfeiture of illegally acquired properties. It held that the Competent Authority adequately provided the appellant with an opportunity to be heard through the notice included in the impugned order, in line with principles of natural justice. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case to support its stance on natural justice and concluded that there was no violation of such principles in this case. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, directing the Competent Authority to expedite the proceedings without unnecessary delays. The Tribunal upheld the High Court's direction regarding the seal removal and occupation of the property, subject to the final outcome of the inquiry. The appeal was deemed unsuccessful, and the impugned order was upheld.
|
