Statutory limits on forfeiture powers prevent Chapter V-A action against persons outside the specified class.

Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applies only to the classes of persons specified in section 68A(2). Because the appellant did not fall within any such statutory category, the authorities could not invoke section 68E to conduct inquiry or investigation, and section 68F could not operate consequentially in the absence of a valid section 68E foundation. The proposed broad purposive reading was rejected because the statutory language was clear and confined the special coercive regime to the prescribed classes. The freezing order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with restoration of possession directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the powers under sections 68E and 68F could be invoked against a person not falling within section 68A(2).

Analysis: Section 68A is the controlling provision and limits the application of Chapter V-A only to the categories of persons specified in section 68A(2). The appellant had not been convicted of an offence carrying the requisite punishment and was not otherwise brought within any applicable category under section 68A(2). Since section 68E authorises inquiry or investigation only in respect of a person to whom Chapter V-A applies, the officer had no jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant under that section. Section 68F is consequential to section 68E and can operate only where a valid inquiry or investigation under section 68E exists. In the absence of jurisdiction to invoke Chapter V-A, the freezing order could not stand. The broad purposive construction suggested for extending the chapter to persons outside section 68A(2) was rejected because the statutory language was clear and unambiguous.

Conclusion: The provisions of Chapter V-A could not be invoked against the appellant, and the freezing order under sections 68E and 68F was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order freezing the shop was set aside and possession was directed to be restored to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confines a special coercive regime to specified classes of persons, the authorities cannot invoke consequential powers under that regime against a person outside the statutory class, and any order made without the jurisdictional precondition is invalid.

---