NDPS forfeiture scheme: burden shifts after reason to believe, and relatives remain covered when detention order survives.

Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act applies to a detenue's relative where the original detention order has not been quashed, set aside, or withdrawn, and a prior challenge affecting only continued detention does not bar invocation of the forfeiture scheme. In forfeiture proceedings, the competent authority must record written reason to believe that property is illegally acquired, after which the burden shifts to the affected person to prove otherwise. The analysis also notes that nexus need not be established in the manner urged by the petitioner, and that new factual assertions raised for the first time in writ proceedings are not considered.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be invoked against the petitioner despite the earlier detention proceedings relating to his brother; and (ii) whether the forfeiture proceedings and the orders of the competent authority and appellate authority were vitiated for want of nexus, inquiry, or proof.

Issue (i): whether Chapter V-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be invoked against the petitioner despite the earlier detention proceedings relating to his brother.

Analysis: The detention order against the detenue had attained finality to the extent it was not set aside, and the earlier quashing of the declaration only affected continued detention beyond the permissible period. The Court found that Section 68Z had no application because the original detention order was never quashed, set aside, or withdrawn. It further held that the petitioner, being the brother of the detenue, fell within the inclusive definition of "relative" and was therefore covered by Chapter V-A.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Chapter V-A were validly applicable to the petitioner and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the forfeiture proceedings and the orders of the competent authority and appellate authority were vitiated for want of nexus, inquiry, or proof.

Analysis: The Court held that the statutory scheme places the burden of proving that the property is not illegally acquired on the person affected, and that the competent authority needs only reason to believe, recorded in writing, that the property is illegally acquired. Relying on the petitioner's minority at the time of acquisition, absence of any proved independent source of income, and the material before the authorities, the Court found no requirement to establish a prior nexus in the manner urged by the petitioner. The Court also held that the impugned orders were to be judged on the material before the authorities and declined to entertain new factual assertions raised for the first time in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The forfeiture orders were sustained and the challenge on merits failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not disclose any ground for interference, and the forfeiture of the properties was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the NDPS forfeiture scheme, once the competent authority has recorded reason to believe that property is illegally acquired, the burden shifts to the affected person to prove otherwise, and Chapter V-A remains applicable to relatives of the detenue where the original detention order has not been quashed.

---