1994 (11) TMI 365 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of ex parte order under Section 68-I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. Status of Roma Niranjan Shah as the spouse of Niranjan J. Shah at the time of her conviction.
3. Applicability of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act based on the term of imprisonment.
4. Liability of the partnership firm and its partners under Chapter V-A of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Ex Parte Order under Section 68-I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act:
The appellant contended that the ex parte order dated March 10, 1993, was passed hastily without affording a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. The appellant argued that the competent authority should have issued a second notice for a personal hearing, despite no initial response to the show-cause notice. However, the Tribunal observed that Section 68-I(1) includes a proviso allowing the competent authority to proceed ex parte if the person affected does not respond within 30 days. The Tribunal held that the competent authority was within its rights to pass the ex parte order, as the appellant failed to respond within the stipulated time. The letter dated March 11, 1993, received after the order was passed, could not be considered. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory provisions must be interpreted to ensure no legislative provision is rendered redundant.

2. Status of Roma Niranjan Shah as the Spouse of Niranjan J. Shah at the Time of Her Conviction:
The appellant argued that proceedings under Chapter V-A were erroneously initiated because Roma Niranjan Shah was not the spouse of Niranjan J. Shah at the time of her conviction, claiming they were divorced. The Tribunal noted that these contentions involved questions of fact that were neither pleaded nor proved during the proceedings. No evidence was provided to establish the divorce or the term of imprisonment. Therefore, these arguments could not be entertained at this stage.

3. Applicability of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Based on the Term of Imprisonment:
The appellant contended that the Act should not apply as Roma Niranjan Shah was sentenced to only one day's imprisonment with probation, not a long-term imprisonment. The Tribunal clarified that Section 68A(b) read with Section 68A(a) requires that the offense carries an imprisonment term of five years or more, irrespective of the actual sentence served. Thus, the argument that the Act would not apply was deemed misconceived and legally untenable.

4. Liability of the Partnership Firm and Its Partners under Chapter V-A of the Act:
The appellant argued that the partnership firm could only be proceeded against if it was an associate of Roma Niranjan Shah. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to examine this contention in detail, as the facts of the case indicated that the firm consisted of Niranjan Shah, his mother, and his two sisters. Under Section 68A(2)(d) and Section 68B(i), relatives of the affected person (Roma Niranjan Shah) are covered by the provisions of Chapter V-A. The Tribunal found that the firm's property, owned by these relatives, was liable to forfeiture. There was no evidence that the property was acquired through lawful means, thus justifying the forfeiture order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the competent authority's order dated March 10, 1993, under Section 68-I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Tribunal concluded that the ex parte order was legally and procedurally sound, and the properties of the partnership firm, owned by relatives of Roma Niranjan Shah, were rightly forfeited due to the lack of lawful acquisition evidence.