ZAHID PARWEZ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 20.4.1994 under Section 68H(1) of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act ") stating that he was covered under Section 68A(2)(d) of the NDPS Act and had acquired certain properties specified in the said notice illegally within the meaning of the said provision of Section 68B(g) of the NDPS Act. After receiving the reply, the Competent Authority passed the orders dated 16.10.1997 holding that the properties were acquired illegally, which were forfeited by the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Competent Authority for the forfeited properties was dismissed. Challenging that order, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was also dismissedvide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2011. It is against this order, the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Charter.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid orders may be recapitulated at this stage. The appellant herein is brother of one Mohd. Azad @ Avid Parwiz son of Abdul Rouf (hereinafter referred to as the "Detenu "). In the case of the detenu, orders dated 26.7.1989 were passed by 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 and export inter-State of narcotic drugs. Pursuant thereto, the detenu was detained on 10.7.1991. The period of detention is three months. However, on 12.8.1991 the Government issued a declaration under Section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act to justify the detention beyond the initial period of three months. The detenu challenged the said detention order dated 26.7.1989 before the Calcutta High Court. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed upholding the detention. The detenu had approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave which was also dismissed. The detenu also challenged the declaration made under Section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act by filing a writ petition in this Court. This writ petition was allowed holding that though initial period of detention was justified, continuous detention beyond three months was vitiated.

(3.) IN the notice dated 20.4.1994 it was stated that the appellant had acquired certain properties, particulars whereof were furnished therein, which were beyond known source of income and an opportunity to show cause was given to him as to why these properties be not forfeited. The appellant gave his reply which was considered by the Competent Authority but was not found satisfactory. Order dated 16.10.1997 was passed under Section 68-I(3) of the NDPS Act was passed. The appellant submitted his reply wherein the case set up by him was that he was running his own business under the name and style of "Nu-York " at Motiganj Bazar, Balasore. He was an income-tax assessee. The properties in question were actually purchased by his father Abdul Rouf in the year 1985 out of his father.s own income and since then he was possessing and looking after these properties. He also stated that he has no connection with his brother Mohd. Azad (the detenu) and they did not live in the same house. He also stated that since the properties were purchased by his father, who died in 1989, source of money would be known to his mother and as such he would have to refer to the documents showing the knowledge of his mother regarding the source of the money. However, he did not produce any such documents. Reply was considered and order was passed, inter alia, stating that he could not give any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention and could not offer the source of money from which the aforesaid properties were purchased. It was, thus, concluded that these were illegally acquired properties within the meaning of Section 68G of the NDPS Act and stood forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances.