https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152000 Chapter VA of the NDPS Act was construed to apply retrospectively as well as prospectively, because section 68A(2)(a) uses the phrase "has been convicted" and the scheme of forfeiture, including section 68C, shows legislative intent to reach persons already convicted. Jurisdiction under section 68D was held not to depend on the notification naming the officer individually; valid appointment of a competent authority of the prescribed rank was sufficient. On the opportunity and source-of-funds issue, notice, replies and hearings were found adequate, and the appellants failed to prove lawful acquisition because they produced no reliable income records or supporting evidence. The forfeiture order was upheld in full. en-us Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152000 Chapter VA of the NDPS Act was construed to apply retrospectively as well as prospectively, because section 68A(2)(a) uses the phrase "has been convicted" and the scheme of forfeiture, including section 68C, shows legislative intent to reach persons already convicted. Jurisdiction under section 68D was held not to depend on the notification naming the officer individually; valid appointment of a competent authority of the prescribed rank was sufficient. On the opportunity and source-of-funds issue, notice, replies and hearings were found adequate, and the appellants failed to prove lawful acquisition because they produced no reliable income records or supporting evidence. The forfeiture order was upheld in full. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152000