SUGANTHIP Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATOR MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed challenging Annexure-D dt. 10-1-2000 passed by the respondent and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, in case No. FPA No. ND3/ bom/2000/9379 as per Annexure-E dated 14-12-2001.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she is a graduate doing real estate business in Bangalore. She was doing the said business even prior to her marriage. The petitioner married one Pakeerathan alias Ravi in the year 1990 and who died on 3-2-1997.

(3.) BY order of the Government of India dt. 30-9-1997 one Manivannan Mahadevan alias Ruben was ordered to be detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 (for short 'act') as he was found in possession of 23 Kgs. of heroin on 24-4-1997. On interrogation, Manivannan, revealed that the husband of the petitioner-Ravi as one of his associates and that Ravi was looking after the business of drug trafficking. In the circumstances, the properties of the petitioner were seized and a search was also conducted on the house of the petitioner on 16-7-1997. The petitioners husband Ravi died on 3-2-1997. A notice was issued to Ruben under Section 68f of the act based on the report of the Investigating officer, a copy of the same was marked to the petitioner. After receipt of the notice, she sent a reply contending that her husband died prior to the seizure of the heroin from ruben and the said Ruben in order to escape from the clutches of law has falsely implicated her husband's name and she further contended that the properties were acquired out of her business income as she was doing real estate business even prior to her marriage. She also furnished income tax returns and the agreements executed by the purchasers who have agreed to purchase the flats in respect of one of the seized properties and requested the authorities to drop the proceedings against her.