CWP No.9861 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9861 of 1996 Date of decision : 06.03.2014 Avtar Singh ...Petitioner versus Union of India & others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** RITU BAHRI , J (ORAL).The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus by quashing the impugned orders dated 07.02.1995 (Annexure P-1) and dated 05.12.1995 (Annexure P- 2) passed by respondents No.3 and 2, respectively and further directing the respondents to release the property of the petitioner from forfeiture.
On 05.08.1988, father of the petitioner namely Gurmail Singh was apprehended by the police for carrying opium without permit and subsequently the father of the petitioner was charge- sheeted under Sections 18/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act') and faced the trial.
During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner, being a son of Gurmail Singh, who was apprehended by the police was considered as relative of that person, in view of the provisions of Section 68-A (2) Sunder Sham 2014.03.14 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9861 of 1996 -2- (d) of the Act and a show cause notice dated 07.03.1994 and revised notice dated 15.12.1994 were issued to the petitioner under Section 68 (H) (1) of the Act to indicate the sources of his income, earnings and assets.
Section 68-A (2) (d) of the Act reads as under: Section 68A:- Application:- (1) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply only to persons specified in sub section (2) (2) The persons referred to in sub-section (1) are following, namely:- (a) X X X X X X (b) X X X X X X (c) X X X X X X (cc) X X X X X X (d) every person who is a relative of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause © or clause (cc).(e) X X X X X X (f) X X X X X X The petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice and thereafter, vide order dated 07.02.1995 (Annexure P-1).respondent No.3 forfeited the properties of the petitioner being illegally acquired properties by illegal activities.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 05.12.1995 (Annexure P-2).Both the impugned orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.
Gurmail Singh, father of the petitioner was convicted by Sunder Sham 2014.03.14 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9861 of 1996 -3- the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine; to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 yeaRs.Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was preferred that was allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.04.1996 (Annexure P-3) and the father of the petitioner (detenu) was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation dated 07.05.1996 (Annexure P-4) for the release of his properties, which were forfeited.
Upon notice respondents No.1 to 3 filed written statement averring, therein, that the properties of the petitioner have been forfeited in view of Chapter VA of the Act and the case of the petitioner is very much covered under Section 68A (2) (d) of the Act.
It has been further averred that the acquittal of the detenue has nothing to do with the proceedings initiated against his relative.
The relevant provision for the release of property in view of Section 68Z reads as under: “68Z: Release of property in certain cases:- 1.
Where the detention order of a detenu is set aside or withdrawn, properties seized or frozen under this Chapter shall stand released.
2.
Where any person referred to in clause (1) or clause (b) or clause (cc) of sub-section (2) of Section 68A has been acquited or discharged from the charges under this Act or any other corresponding law of any other country and the acquittal was not appealed against or when appealed against, the appeal was Sunder Sham 2014.03.14 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9861 of 1996 -4- disposed of as a consequence of which such property could not be forfeited or warrant of arrest or authorisation of arrest issued against such person has been withdrawn, then, property seized or frozen under this Chapter shall stand released.”
.
It is not disputed by the respondents in the written statement that Gurmail Singh (detenu).father of the petitioner has been acquitted vide Annexure P-3 passed by this Court.
The respondents have not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal (Annexure P-3).The case of the petitioner falls under sub-section 2 of Section 68Z of the Act.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed; orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are quashed, and the respondents are directed to release the properties of the petitioner which were forfeited.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE March 06, 2014 sham Sunder Sham 2014.03.14 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh