Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 783
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-ND-568/DLI/2021(Exem.)
FPA-ND-368/DLI/2021 Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur … Appellant Versus The Competent Authority, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Giri, Adv.
For the Respondent : Counsel appeared.
CORAM SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN : MEMBER SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER
FINAL ORDER
19.12.2024 The present appeal is preferred against the order no.
F.No.CA/DL/PUN/NDPS/POL 95/21-22/1527-1533 of the Ld. Competent Authority (Ld. CA), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act, 1985”) dated 29.07.2021 wherein the immovable/ movable properties of the Appellant were seized/frozen.
Facts in Brief:
2. It is revealed from the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 that 12,400 tablets of Microlit (Micron), 900 tablets of Tramadol, 5 bottles of Maharex (100 ml. each), and drug money amounting to Rs. 29,300 were recovered from the possession of Shri Amarjeet Singh @ Amar, son of Shri Lakhvir Singh, a resident of Bazigar Basti, Banur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.
3. An FIR (FIR No. 151) was registered against him on 18.11.2020 under
Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District: Tarn Taran, Punjab. He was arrested in connection with the case on the same day i.e. 18.11.2020.
4. Since the offense is punishable with rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) of ten years or more under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Shri Amarjeet Singh @ Amar, son of Shri Lakhvir Singh (Affected Person-1 or „AP-1‟), was considered a person covered under Section 68A(2)(cc) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur („AP-2‟), the Appellant in the present case who is the wife of AP-1, is regarded as a „relative‟ of AP-1 and is, therefore, covered under Section 68A(2)(d) of the NPDS Act, 1985.
5. The impugned order mandates that the following properties be seized/frozen, prohibiting their transfer, sale, purchase, or any other dealings unless permission is granted by either the Station House Officer, Police Station, Special Task Force, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Punjab, or the Competent Authority & Administrator, Delhi:
Sr. No.
Name of owner
Description of properties
Date of acquisition/purchase
Value (in Rs)
1.
Shri Amarjeet Singh @ Amar, S/o Shri Lakhvir Singh. (AP-1)
Drug Money recovered
18.11.2020
29,300
2.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, W/o Shri Amarjeet Singh @Amar. (AP-2)
Flat No. A-3004, 3rd Floor, Block-A, M/s City Floors bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 85/86/90, Khasra No. 37//13/2/2 (0- 11), 18/3 (0-2), 19/1 (2-4), 159/1/1 (0-3) pieces 4 measuring 03 Kanals its 40/3600 share measuring 06 Sarsahi and Khewat/Khatauni No. 90, /87/91, Khasra No. 37//11/4 (1-11), 12/1 (5-8), 20/1/1 (1-1) pieces 03 measuring 08 Kanals its 1/160 share measuring 01 Marlas its total land is 01 Marlas and 06 Sarsahi having Hadbast No. 38 vide Intekal No. 2773 and Vasika No. 2424 situated at Village: Bairampur, Tehsil & District: SAS Nagar, Punjab
24.08.2020
31,80,000
3.
Shri Amarjeet Singh @ Amar, S/o Shri Lakhvir Singh. (AP-1)
TVS Jupiter Scooter bearing registration No. PB-6S-AZ-1605, Chassis No. MD626CG51L3K37280, Engine No. CGSKL3119576
07.12.2020
40,000
6. The Station House Officer (SHO) observed on the basis of his financial investigation that the above-mentioned properties were purchased by AP-1 in the name of his relatives out of the illegal income earned through drug trafficking.
7. As per the provisions of the Section 68 (2) a seizing/ freezing order passed u/s 68 F (1) is required to be confirmed by the Competent Authority (C.A.) within 30 days if it is to remain in effect. The Ld. Competent Authoritygranted opportunity to both the parties to present their case. However, the parties failed to appear on the requisite dates and, therefore, the Ld. CA passed the impugnedorder wherein it was held that the properties mentioned in the table above were illicitly acquired through income derived from drug trafficking. It was also held that there is no evidence on record to suggest any legitimate source of income or livelihood for the APs other than through such unlawful means. Further, the defendant failed to appear before the Ld. CA. Thereby, the Ld. CA confirmed the freezing order noting that the burden of proof is on the affected person according to secti
