Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1998 (1) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s under section 68-E of the NDPS Act. He passed the orders under section 68-F(1) ordering the seizure of the properties of the affected person directing that such properties shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with his prior permission, or of the competent authority. The competent authority held that there are no reasons to confirm the said orders in two of the matters and the orders of the appellant became ineffective. In the third matter, the competent authority confirmed the order of the appellant. In the first instance, he confirmed the order of the appellant and after considering the evidence produced by the affected person, the order of confirmation was vacated and the order of the appellant became ineffective. Ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being a subordinate of the competent authority cannot question the order of the superior and that his role is only to assist the competent authority and to make the investigation on the lines indicated by the competent authority. He further contends that the appellant who was not a party to the proceedings at any stage, cannot prefer an appeal against the order of the competent authority. Shri S. S. Dass, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the appellant is a person aggrieved, within the meaning of the Act as he is bound to safeguard the interests of the State and to bring it to the notice of this Tribunal that the orders of the competent authority are erroneous. He submits that the appellant is the officer who traced and iden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... matter of public interest, and cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. If the appeal is treated as made in his official capacity, the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau cannot be treated as a person. The word "person" is defined as a human being (natural person), though by a statute the term may include labour organisations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers, as per Black's Law Dictionary. An office of an Intelligence Officer cannot be treated as a person. Applying the same reasoning, the appeals by the Narcotics Control Bureau are also not maintainable, as the Bureau is not a "person" within the meaning of section 68-O. A contention similar to....