9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order passed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Lack of specific details regarding the delay and reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. 3. Applicability of legal precedents on condonation of delay due to genuine mistakes by legal representatives. 4. Importance of protecting property rights in cases of seizure/freezing under section 68F of the Act. 5. Examination of the rights affected by an order under section 68F and the discretion of the Tribunal in condoning delays. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was directed against an order passed under section 68F(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, confirming the seizure/freezing of properties. The appellant sought condonation of an 11-day delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of 45 days, citing reliance on their advocate for legal matters. 2. The Tribunal noted the lack of specific details regarding the delay and the reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time frame. The appellant's application for condonation of delay did not provide sufficient information about why the appeal was not filed on time, such as whether the order was handed over to the advocate promptly or if any queries were raised about filing an appeal. 3. Legal precedents were cited regarding the condonation of delay due to genuine mistakes by legal representatives. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide specific details about any mistake made by the advocate or demonstrate how the delay was due to a bona fide error on the part of the legal representative. 4. The Tribunal discussed the importance of protecting property rights in cases of seizure/freezing under section 68F of the Act. It highlighted that the provision aims to safeguard properties pending a final order of forfeiture to prevent their dissipation. The appellant was allowed to seek permission to deal with the property under certain circumstances. 5. The Tribunal considered the rights affected by the order under section 68F and the discretion of the Tribunal in condoning delays. It emphasized that the order did not seriously prejudice the appellant's rights, as it was not a final order of forfeiture. Without sufficient details or evidence supporting the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Overall, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of specific information regarding the delay, the nature of the order under appeal, and the rights affected by the order under section 68F of the Act.
|
