Appellant challenged attachment of property purchased in 1995 under NDPS Act. Court held that since acquisition predates arrest by over six years, property could not be attached under proviso to Section 68(c).
Appeal allowed and the impugned order of attachment set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SAFEMA, FEMA, NDPS, PMLA & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-ND-150/DLI/2016 (COD) FPA-ND-64/DLI/2016
Som Pal
… Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Competent Authority, New Delhi
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the Appellant : Mr. Vinod Malhotra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. D. S. Bisht, Joint Commissioner CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 30.10.2018
On 20th September, 2018 the following order was passed:
“FPA-ND-64/DLI/2016
The attached property was purchased in 1995. FIR was registered in 2011 and the son of the appellant was arrested. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred section under 68(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 which reads as under:
“Prohibition of holding illegally acquired property:-
(1) As from the commencement of this Chapter, it shall not be lawful for any person to whom this Chapter applies to hold any illegally acquired property either by himself or through any other person on his behalf.
(2) Where any person holds any illegally acquired property in contravention of the provisions of sub-section(1), such property shall be liable to be forfeited to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
[Provided that no property shall be forfeited under this Chapter if such property was acquired, by a person to whom this Act applies, before a period of six years from the date he was arrested or against whom a warrant or authorization of arrest has been issued for the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or from the date the order or detention was issued, as the case may be.]”
In the case provision of Section 68(c) if read in a meaningful manner it is evident that in case the accused is arrested by the police under offence of NDPS Act, 1985 than if the property is acquired prior to six years of the date of arrest than such property
FPA-ND-64/DLI/2016 Page 1 of 2
cannot be attached. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the appellant has filed the documents including the ration card issued on 1st February, 2000 as well as copy of the electricity bill. The counsel for the appellant states that family of the appellant is still residing at the premises and he will be producing the some more latest documents in order to show the same is under use. We have heard Mr. D.S. Bisht, J.C. on behalf of the respondent. Let the documents be filed within four weeks.”
Mr. D.S. Bisht, Joint Commissioner appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed the communication order dated 20th September, 2018 alongwith the report of SHO, Police Station Sadar Batala which would indicate that no fresh construction has been made by the Surinder Kumar @ Sonu S/o Biram Chand R/o Chabal Road, Gate Hakima, H.N. 1568, Gali No. 04 Bhagat Singh Colony P.S. Gate Hakima, Amritsar, Punjab within six years from the date of arrest. In view of there, the present appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
List on 30th October, 2018.”
Copy of the order be given ‘ dasti’ to both the parties.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G. C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 30th October, 2018
‘K’
FPA-ND-64/DLI/2016
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the attachment of property acquired more than six years before the arrest violates the proviso to Section 68(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Som Pal
The Competent Authority
Justice Manmohan Singh
Shri G. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
