- (1.) Interpretation and application of Chapter VA of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") providing for forfeiture of property derived from or used in illicit traffic, is in question in this batch of appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 27-11-2002 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1095 of 2002. OVERVIEW
(2.) One Iqbal Mohammed Memon alias Iqbal Mirchi ("Mirchi", for short) is related to the appellants. Appellant No. 2 is his first wife, Appellant No.3 is second wife, Appellant No. 4, Abdul Kadar Mohd. Merchant, is one of his brothers, Appellant No. 5, Shir Firoz Mohd. Memen, is his second brother whereas Petitioner No. 6, Aslam Mohd. Merchant, is his third brother. Appellant No.7, Nazma Aslam Merchant, is his brother's wife, Appellant No.8, Zaibunnisa Memon, is his sister and Appellant No. 9, Arij Mohd. Merchant, is the brother-in-law of the said Iqbal Mohammed Memon. An order of preventive detention was passed against him for his alleged involvement in illicit trafficking under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the "PITNDPS") on or about 29-9-1994. The same, however, could not be served on him as he had left India. A pre execution writ petition filed on his behalf was dismissed. The said order of detention is still operative.
(3.) The said Iqbal Mirchi is, thus, a 'person' within the meaning of Section 68A(C) of the Act. Appellants being his relatives in terms of Section 68H of the Act were issued with notices directing them to show cause as to why the properties mentioned therein should not be forfeited being 'illegally acquired properties'. Causes were shown pursuant thereto. Opportunities of hearing were also afforded. Whereas some of the properties belonging to the appellants were directed to be forfeited, some were released. The Appellate Tribunal on appeals having been preferred thereagainst by the appellants by a common order dated 26-7-2002 affirmed the said findings. Some more properties, however, were directed to be released opining that they did not come within the purview of the definition of illegally acquired properties'.;