ZAHID PARWEZ Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Md. Azad @ Avid Parwiz S/o Abdul Rouf was sought to be detained vide detention order dated 26.07.1989 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) with a view to prevent him from engaging in manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, import & export inter-State of narcotic drugs. This detention order became effective on 10.07.1991, when the detenue was detained. On 12.08.1991, the Special Secretary to the Government of India sought to issue a declaration under Section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The purpose of issuing the said declaration was to justify the detention beyond the initial period of three months.

(2.) THE admitted position is that the detenue unsuccessfully challenged the detention order dated 26.07.1989 before the Calcutta High Court vide Crl. Misc. No. 1244/1992. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the detenue before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. However, the challenge to the declaration made under Section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act was successful before this Court vide W.P.(Crl.) No. 315/1992. This Court while disposing of W.P.(Crl.) No. 315/1992, inter alia, passed the following order:

(3.) THE competent authority vide order dated 16.10.1997 held that it was conclusively established that the aforesaid properties are illegally acquired within the meaning of Section 68B(g) of the NDPS Act. A declaration was issued that the said properties are illegally acquired within the meaning of the said provision and they were forfeited by the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority for forfeited properties. Before the appellate authority, it appears, the mother of the petitioner filed an affidavit, wherein it was claimed that the properties had been acquired by her husband, i.e., the late father of the petitioner, in the name of the petitioner. It was claimed that the detenue Md. Azad @ Avid Parwiz had no concern with the said properties and they did not belong to him.