Reason to believe requirement governs NDPS forfeiture, and the burden cannot shift without a valid statutory foundation.

In forfeiture proceedings under Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act, the competent authority must first record reasons to believe, based on relevant material, that the properties were illegally acquired before issuing notice under section 68-H. Where the notice does not disclose the information relied on, and the alleged statements or material do not establish a nexus between the properties and illicit activity, the statutory foundation for initiation fails. The burden under section 68-J cannot shift to the affected person unless that foundational requirement is satisfied. On these facts, the show cause notice, forfeiture order, and appellate confirmation were set aside, and restoration of possession of the properties was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice and forfeiture proceedings under Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were validly initiated in the absence of recorded reasons showing a reason to believe that the properties were illegally acquired; (ii) Whether the burden under section 68-J could be cast on the petitioner when the foundational requirement for initiation of proceedings was not satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice and forfeiture proceedings under Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were validly initiated in the absence of recorded reasons showing a reason to believe that the properties were illegally acquired.

Analysis: Chapter V-A requires the competent authority to form and record a reason to believe, based on relevant material, before issuing notice under section 68-H. The material relied upon must establish a link or nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and illegal activity. On the facts, the stated grounds in the notice were found to be unsupported: the alleged relevant information was not disclosed, the husband's alleged statement did not connect the properties to illegal acquisition, and the petitioner's alleged statement was neither proved nor shown to be legally admissible or corroborated by any other material.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not validly initiated and the show cause notice was without the statutory foundation required by the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the burden under section 68-J could be cast on the petitioner when the foundational requirement for initiation of proceedings was not satisfied.

Analysis: The burden under section 68-J arises only after a valid notice under section 68-H is issued on the basis of recorded reasons to believe. If the competent authority has no reason to believe, or fails to record such reasons, the burden cannot shift to the affected person. The forfeiture order and the Tribunal's view proceeded entirely on the petitioner's failure to prove lawful source of funds, without first establishing the statutory basis for invoking the burden-shifting provision.

Conclusion: The burden could not lawfully be cast on the petitioner, and the forfeiture order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The forfeiture action and the appellate confirmation were set aside, and restoration of possession of the properties was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: In forfeiture proceedings under Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the competent authority must first have and record reasons to believe, based on material showing a nexus between the property and illicit activity, before the statutory burden of proof can shift to the affected person.

---