IBRAHIM ADAMALI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, Mr. Sangani, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, having taken instructions from his client, makes a statement that he is restricting this writ petition to the relief claimed in prayer clause (d) only. Statement accepted.

(2.) Heard Mr. Sangani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Gonsalvez, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. By the judgment and order dated 5th August 1997, the Petitioner is convicted by the Special Court in Special Case No. 286 of 1996 for the offence punishable under sections 8(c) read with 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short, "NDPS Act"] and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The Petitioner challenged this judgment and order by filing an appeal before the High Court. The appeal, however, is dismissed.

(3.) On 15th May 1998, an order was passed by the Anti Narcotic Cell, CID Mumbai under section 68F of the NDPS Act for freezing Petitioner's property, namely, Flat No. 301, Wimbledon II Apartment, Four Bunglow, Andheri (West), Mumbai, claiming that the Petitioner has acquired the same illegally. The Competent Authority was informed about the freezing order within 48 hours as contemplated under section 68F of the NDPS Act. By the order dated 29th May 1998, the Competent Authority confirmed the freezing order and issued show cause notice as postulated under section 68H of the NDPS Act to the Petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the said property should not be forfeited. The notice was served on the Petitioner on 24th May 1998. The Petitioner thereafter on 23rd June 1998 gave reply to the notice. Subsequently, the matter before the Competent Authority was fixed on 21st May 1999 and 22nd June 1999. the Petitioner did not appear despite notice. The Competent Authority, therefore, on the basis of the Petitioner's reply, passed order dated 6th August 1999 thereby the said property was declared to be illegally acquired property and the same was forfeited to the Central Government. This order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal. By the order dated 1st October 2001, the appeal is also dismissed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. This order is impugned in the present writ petition.