APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-ND-284/DLI/2024 Shri Charan Das @ Charn Dass S/o Shri Chanan Ram, R/o Village Kaneeja, Police Station Meharbaan, District Ludhiana, Punjab, … Appellant Versus

1. The Competent Authority, Delhi

2. SHO, PS: Meharban, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, District- Ludhiana, Punjab. … Respondents Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued For the Appellant : S/Sh. Roop Jain & Ankit Sharma, Advocates, For the Respondents : Ms. Seema Grover, Advocate.

CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

26.02.2026 Dictated by: Rajesh Malhotra The present appeal u/s 68-O of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is filed by the appellant, Shri Charan Das @ Charn Dass against the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Competent Authority and Administrator, Delhi whereby the Freezing Order dated 08.09.2024 passed by the SHO, PS: Meharbaan, Police Commissionerate: Ludhiana, District: Ludhiana was confirmed qua the following property of the appellant:-

2. On 19.05.2021, Punjab Police recovered 129 Kgs of Poppy Husk from the possession of Shri Sandeep Kumar @ Sanju S/o Late Ram Kumar and Shri Sunny @ Mahe, S/o Shri Charan Das. Accordingly, FIR No.55 dated 19.05.2021 was registered against them for commission of offence u/s 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at PS, Meharban.

As the said offence is punishable for 10 years or more against Sunny @ Mahe is affected person covered u/s 68A(2)(cc) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and his family members are covered u/s 68A(2)(d) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, SHO/ Freezing Authority, PS, Meharbaan conducted Financial Investigation into the illegally acquired properties of the APs as defined u/s 68B(g) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Thereafter, on 08.09.2024, he passed the Freezing Order No. 191-198-5A/PS-Meharban, Ludhiana, u/s 68F(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985, including property of the present appellant as mentioned in Para No. 1 above.

Thereafter, SHO issued the notice dated 10.09.2024 to the APs to defend their case before the Competent Authority and Administrator, at Delhi on 18.09.2024. None appeared on behalf of either side. SHO was directed to inform the APs for furnishing their reply in the office on 23.09.2024 with copy to SHO for filing the rejoinder, if any, by 25.09.2024. On the said date APs failed to appear and file their reply, as informed by the SHO. Accordingly, on the basis of material on record, the Competent Authority confirmed the Freezing Order vide its findings as mentioned in Para No. 8 to 10 of the impugned order.

Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the present appeal.

3. During the arguments Ld. Counsel for appellant argued that the perusal of the impugned order reveals that ex-parte order was passed against the appellant and there is nothing on record that appellant Shri Charan Das was duly served by the SHO for appearance before the Competent Authority on 18.09.2024 or 25.09.2024. He stressed that SHO wrongly informed the Competent Authority about the service and thereby obtained the ex-parte Confirmation Order. He stressed that burden of proof is wrongly shifted on the appellant that the property was not acquired from any illicit source of income by ignoring the principal that burden of proof does not shift, unless the essential statutory requirements are met. The SHO has not recorded any reasons to deduce that the property was acquired from any illicit money of drug trafficking, as alleged. The statement of co-villagers, neighbours, Numberdar, or, Sarpanch are not recorded in this regard. He pointed out that the Valuation Report obtained by the SHO is a procured document and the Valu