Condonation of delay requires specific proof of sufficient cause; vague reliance on an unnamed representative was held inadequate.

Condonation of a 11-day delay in filing an appeal against seizure and freezing orders under the NDPS Act was refused because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause with specific particulars. A general assertion that the matter had been entrusted to an advocate was held inadequate where no advocate was named, no supporting affidavit was filed, and no clear explanation was given for the delay or the alleged bona fide mistake. The Tribunal also treated the underlying section 68F order as an interim protective order, but found no basis for liberal exercise of discretion on vague and unsupported claims. The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal against the order of seizure and freezing of properties under section 68F of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 should be condoned under the proviso to section 68-O(1) on the showing of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The application for condonation rested on a general plea that the appellant had entrusted all matters to an advocate and therefore no appeal was filed in time. No name of the advocate was disclosed in the application, no affidavit of the advocate or other person directly concerned was produced, and no specific averment was made that the impugned order had been handed over for advice on the remedy available. The later reference to another advocate or to a chartered accountant did not cure these omissions, because no particulars were furnished as to what advice was given or what bona fide mistake prevented timely filing. The order under section 68F was also treated as an interim protective order, not a final forfeiture order, and the Tribunal held that the circumstances did not justify liberal exercise of discretion merely on the basis of general assertions.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: A party seeking condonation of delay must plead and prove sufficient cause with specific particulars, and vague reliance on an unspecified lawyer or other representative is not enough to invoke discretionary relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a specific, substantiated showing of sufficient cause; unsupported and vague explanations, without particulars or supporting affidavit from the person said to be responsible, are insufficient.

---