Partly allowed

FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015 of Gulam Mohd. H. Ghanai v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

ATFP5 Jul 2018FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal considered an application by the appellant to file additional evidence regarding the legal source of seized property under the NDPS Act. The court admitted the documents on record, deferring their substantive merit assessment to the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Additional evidences filed by the appellant under Rule 14 of the Appellant Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1989 are taken on record subject to the objection of the respondent.

FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015 of Gulam Mohd. H. Ghanai v/s The Competent… — Narcotics (NDPS) | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT Act AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-ND-118/MUM/2015 MP-ND-119/MUM/2015 & FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015

¶3

Gulam Mohd. H. Ghanai … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Competent Authority, Mumbai … Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant : Shri Aseem Thakkar, C.A. For the respondent : Shri Siddhartha Mazumdar, I.O.

¶8

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN

¶9

ORDER

¶10

05.07.2018

¶11

FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015

¶12

The appellant has filed the above said appeal under Section 68-O of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. During the currency of the appeal, the appellant has filed the additional documents by producing the following evidences, details of which are mentioned as under:-

¶13

Sl. No.	Particulars	Page Nos.
1.	Copy of Release Order issued by Jail Authority Release date– 10/11/2016	1 to 2
2.	Copy of bank statement of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.	3 to 15
3.	Copy of Cheque Record Slip with a copy of Cheque issued of the Dabhoi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. with Signature of person/seller withdrawn the amount in cash	16 to 19
4.	Affidavit of purchaser – Abdul Rashid Gulam Nabi Bhat Forthe purchase ofagricultureland situated at	20 to 22

¶14

FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Gantalipora, Tehsil-Bijbehara, Dist-Anantnag, Kashmir Owned by the appellant (one set with original affidavit)

¶17

Certified Translation copy of Decree passed by Sub23 to 29 Judge, Bijbehara in respect of land owned by the Appellant with copy of Decree passed in Urdu language for land ownership

¶18

Copy of affidavit of sellers of property situated at Dabhoi (one set with original affidavit)

¶19

The appellant has also filed the affidavit wherein he deposes in page-

¶20

2 of the affidavit as under:-

¶21

“That I had undergone sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 8 (c) and section 20(b) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. I came to be released on 10.11.2016. The impugned order in my case had been passed by the Ld. Competent Authority on 10.02.2015. Therefore, the order in question had been passed in my absence when I was undergoing sentence. The relevant details to establish that the impugned order had been acquired from known and legal sources were only known and available with me. Since the impugned order has been passed in my absence coupled with the above facts the necessary and relevant evidences could not be presented at the time of hearing before the Competent Authority which established that the property in question was purchased out of known and legal sources.

¶22

In view of the reasons stated herein above I now produce additional evidences under Rule 14 of the Appellant Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1989. I hereby make this affidavit in support of the Paper book dated 30.01.2018 comprising of page Nos. 1 to 38 being additional evidences with a prayer to admit the same.”

¶23

The respondent has filed the reply to the application for additional

¶24

evidence. It is stated in the reply that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 11.10.2013 even his wife had filed the reply dated 23.10.2010 wherein it was stated that the properties was not illegally acquired, but despite of personal hearing which was granted to the appellant on 11.12.2013, the wife of the appellant duly appeared and made the counter-statement. It

¶25

is stated that even in view of the directions issued by the High Court, another hearing was granted to the appellant on 17.10.2014, however, the appellant could not attend the hearing as he was in custody. He was

¶26

released on parole on 21.10.2014 and thereafter on 27.10.2014, more

¶27

time was sought by the appellant to file the said affidavit. The appellant

¶28

was duly represented by the advocate who had also filed the written FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015 Page 2 of 3

¶29

submission on 29.12.2014 along with the documents. However, the said documents were not produced. Since the appellant was given ample time, the appellant did not produce the documents which are not in file.

¶30

After hearing, I am of the view that as as far as the merit of the said documents are concerned, the same will be considered as per its own merit. The respondent is also granted liberty to raise about the validity of documents as per law. In order to decide the real controversy in the matter, I am of the view that the additional evidences filed by the appellant are taken on record subject to the objection of the respondent.

¶31

Under these circumstances, the additional evidences filed by the appellant under Rule 14 of the Appellant Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1989 are taken on record. The appellant is at liberty to produce the original documents at the time of next hearing.

¶32

List this matter for hearing on 15.11.2018.

¶33

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶34

New Delhi, 05^th July, 2018 ‘SKB’

¶35

FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015

¶36

Page 3 of 3

FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015 of Gulam Mohd. H. Ghanai v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-ND-33/MUM/2015 of Gulam Mohd. H. Ghanai v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases