FINAL ORDER

30.01.2024

Along with Appeal an application for Condonation of Delay (CoD) has been filed to condone delay of 1944 days in filing the appeal. It is pleaded, inter-alia, the following in his application for CoD.

1. That the Appellant was arrested on 14.03.2018 and was in custody when the impugned Order was delivered.

2. That, it was on 30.03.2023 when bail was granted vide NDPS Case No. 170 of 2018 and the Appellant came to know about the case, and began his defence.

3. That, Appellant was under stress and family members were also under medical treatment and their medical documents are annexed with the Appeal.

4. That, sometime was lost in procuring the documents, and once the documents were received, the matter was taken up with the counsel for legal opinion.

5. That, some of the documents were in Marathi and needed translation, therefore further time was spent in getting the translation done from Marathi to English.

6. That, Petitioner coming from economically weaker section, sometime was taken up to find legal advice and legal counsel who would be willing to take up the case on pro-bono basis.

7. That, the delay in filing the Appeal is bonafide and unintentional .

2. Heard on the application for CoD. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the copy of the impugned Order was served, in the year of 2018, when the Appellant No.1 was in Jail. The Ld. Counsel reiterated the pleadings made in the application and submitted that the Appellant was in custody for five years and that the mother of the Appellant No.1 was suffering from Cancer and that he was busy with her treatment and that all the documents were taken away by the NCB.

3. Considered the submissions orally made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and also the pleadings in the application for CoD. It is admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that there is a huge delay in filing the appeal. The Appellants have not mentioned the exact date of service of the Order. However, it is admitted in writing as well as orally that the impugned Order was served on the Appellant in the year 2018. No contrary stand has been taken by the other Appellants.

4. The impugned Order is dated 14.06.2018. As per the version of the Appellants the impugned Order was served in the year of 2018. For the sake of arguments if the date of service is taken as 31.12.2018 then also there is huge delay in filing the appeal. If the date of the service of the Order is taken as 31.12.2018, the appeal was to be filed within 45 days from the date of service of the Order which expired on 15.02.2019. This Tribunal has power to condone the delay of 15 days, if the appeal is filed within 60 days, which expired on 02.03.2019. However, the appeal has been filed on 24.11.2023. So, there is a considerable delay of much longer than 60 days, from the date of service of the Order, in filing the Appeal.

5. This Tribunal has no power to condone delay beyond 60 days. The relevant provision as prescribed under Section 68O (1), NDPS Act, 1985, which deals with appeal provision is reproduced below:

“(1) [Any officer referred to in sub- section (1) of section 68E or any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority] made under section 68 F, section 68 I, sub- section (1) of section 68K or section 68L, may, within forty–five days from the date on which the order is served on him, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal :

PROVIDED that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the said period of forty-five days, but not after sixty days, from the date aforesaid if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

6. It is necessary to bring on record some examples of similar provisions/substantially similar provisions in some other special Acts and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts on the issue.

7. The Proviso to Section 12 (4) of Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeit