TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Khimji Bhanushali. One Iqbal Memon alias Iqbal Mirchi was detained by an order dated September 2, 1994, issued under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS), which was neither revoked nor quashed by any court of competent jurisdiction. The Senior Inspector, Narcotics Cell, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sections 68E and 68F(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, issued notice/order dated February 26, 1997, freezing the properties mentioned in annexure I to the said order on the ground that Nitin Khimji Bhanushali is likely to dispose of the said properties which are illegally acquired properties. The Competent Authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal is filed within the time granted by the High Court. This Tribunal was directed to entertain the same without raising the objection of limitation and to dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The respondents were directed to remove the seal put on Flat No. 801 and to permit the appellant to occupy the same along with her family members. The appellant was also directed to file a reply to the proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority under section 68 within four weeks from the date of the order. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the appellant has come up in appeal, against the order of the Competent Authority. The appellant raised contentions relating to the jurisdiction of the Senior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause at to why the properties should not be forfeited. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the questions for consideration are whether the provisions of Chapter VA of the Act are not applicable to the appellant and whether the principles of natural justice have been violated. Firstly, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is neither the detenu nor is an associate of the detenu and hence her properties are not liable to be forfeited as she does not fall within the purview of section 68A(2) and the provisions of Chapter VA are not applicable to her. Section 68A of the Act deals with the application of Chapter VA only to persons specified in sub-section (2), namely, to persons who have been con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t based on the evidence that is on record and the evidence yet to be adduced. If the Competent Authority is able to come to such a conclusion based on evidence and to hold that the properties only nominally stand in the name of the appellant, the provisions of Chapter VA would be applicable. In the view of the matter, we see no substance in the contention of learned counsel in this regard. It was next submitted by learned counsel that neither the Senior Inspector nor the Competent Authority gave an opportunity to the appellant by issuing notice to her to defend herself and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as it was made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The contention of the Competent Authority is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is silent with regard to giving an opportunity to be heard, the same should be read into the provision, as the giving of a notice is a principle of natural justice. We are in entire agreement with learned counsel with regard to the principle of law submitted by him. The provisions relating to identification of illegally acquired properties, investigation, seizure or freezing, management and forfeiture are covered by sections 68E, 68F, 68G and 68H, which provide an integrated procedure and one cannot be split from the other. Identification of illegally acquired property may or may not culminate in forfeiture. Parliament thought it fit to provide for issuance of notice to the affected person by making such a provision in section 68H, where t....