ORDER

21.02.2024

The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the Order in F.No.CA/DL/PUN/NDPS/POL/68/23-24/1316 dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Competent Authority, New Delhi against the appellant by confirming the Freezing Order No.608-5E dated 22.06.2023 u/s 68F(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 passed by SHO, Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.

2. Along with appeal an Application for Condonation of Delay (CoD) has been filed to condone the delay of 165 days in filing the appeal on the ground mentioned in Para Nos.2 to 4. During the course of hearing, it is admitted by Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate that the copy of the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 is served on the appellant on 01.08.2023 and that the appeal has been filed on 11.01.2024. It is also admitted by him that this Tribunal has no power to condone delay, if the appeal is filed after the 60^th day from the date of service of the order. It was the submission of the Ld. counsel for the Appellant that appropriate order may be passed keeping in view the pleadings and the relevant provisions of law.

3. Mr. G. N. Mishra, Inspector appearing for the Respondent Competent Authority submitted that this is a huge delay which is beyond the competency of this Tribunal by virtue of Proviso to Section 68-O(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. It was also argued that recently the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C)12677/2023 & CM APPL.49965/2023 in the matter of Suman Kumar Rana Vs. Competent Authority And Administrator & Anr., in which his Lordship has upheld the judgment and order of this Tribunal on the issue of Condonation of Delay wherein the appeal was filed after the delay of 174 days from the date of service of the order of Ld. Competent Authority. It was also submitted that the said order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

4. We have heard both the on the Application for CoD and also gone through the grounds mentioned in the memo of Appeal as well as Application for CoD. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 and the order is served on 01.08.2023 and the appeal is filed on 11.01.2024. The period for filing the appeal is 45 days from the date of service of the impugned order on the appellant, which expired on 15.09.2023 and the extended period of 15 days expired on 30.09.2023 and the appeal filed on 11.01.2024 with a total delay of 118 days from the expire of 45 days i.e. the period of limitation for 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 (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and S. 68(O)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are similar. The relevant provisions of both the Acts are re-produced below:

―SAFEM ACT, 1976

12(4) of SAFEMA,1976:- Any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority made under section 7. Subsection (1) of section 9 or section 10, may, within forty five days from the date on which the