Appeal Against Freezing Order Under NDPS Act Cannot Be Dismissed Solely Because Jailed Accused Couldn't Sign Petition: P&H HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today held that an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be dismissed merely because the accused, lodged in jail, was unable to sign the petition and the Appellate Court ought to decide on merits. 

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "Considering the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that when the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 68 (O) of the NDPS Act and the petitioners have already filed the appeal before the designated forum, the Appellate Authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits, rather than throwing it away on account of the aforesaid defects especially when the removal of same was not within the control of the petitioner No.2, being lodged in Jail."

The plea was filed seeking quashing of the order which was dismissed by the NDPS Appellate Court on account of non-removal of the objections filed against  freezing of the property of the petitioner under Section 68 (F)(2) of the NDPS Act.

As per the case, the petitioners were involved in the FIR, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, on the basis of the order under Section 68(F)(1) of the NDPS Act, having been passed, by the Station House Officer of the concerned police station, the Competent Authority/ Administrator passed the order (under Section 68 (F)(2) of the NDPS Act, confirming the freezing order dated 29.08.2023 qua the property of the petitioners.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that an appeal under Section 68 (O) of the NDPS Act before the Appellate Tribunal, which however was dismissed being defective on account of the inability of the accused to remove certain defects

It was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the sole defect which could not be rectified by the petitioners was regarding the fact that “petitioner No.2 (accused) should also sign paper book and file duly sworn affidavit in support of the averments made in the appeal.”

Counsel for the petitioners apprised the Court  that the accused is lodged in Jail and request was made to the concerned Superintendent Jail for getting the affidavit of the accused attested but he required orders from the Court to that fact and due to this reason, the defect could not be cured, due to reasons beyond his control, however, he is ready to get the defect cured and sought indulgence of this Court.

Consequently, the Court set aside the administrative order of the Appellate Tribunal, without commenting on the merits of the case, directed the petitioners to submit the copy of petition and also the affidavit of petitioner before the concerned Superintendent of Jail within 7 working days.

It further asked the concerned Superintendent of Jail to get it signed from the petitioner in his presence and also get his affidavit of petitioner duly attested from the Oath Commissioner to be taken along with by the counsel/representative for the petitioner immediately in accordance with rules.

The Court asked the petitioners to file the requisite application before the Appellate Authority within 15 days thereof for the revival of the appeal, dismissed being defective, and in that event the concerned Appellate Authority will decide the same on the merits of the case.

Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Dipanshu Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.3.

Title: PINKY ALIAS PINCKY & ANOTHER v. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY & OTHERS

Click here to read/download the order