SMT. HEENA KAUSAR versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 24-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 967 
) 
SMT. HEENA KAUSAR 
A 
II. 
COMPETENT AUTHORITY 
(Criminal Appeal No.1058 of 2003) 
APRIL 24, 2008 
B 
'. 
[S.S. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985; 
Section 68, proviso to s.68C as inserted by Amendment Act 
No. 9 of 2001: 
c 
Prohibition of holding illegally acquired property -
Exception to, in terms of proviso to s. 68C as inserted by 
'amendment in the Act providing for period of limitation -
Applicability of - Held: Not applicable - Order of Appellate 
Authority directing confiscation of property allegedly acquired D 
illegally by appellant challenged before High Court - Since 
" . 
appellant did not raise contention about applicability of proviso 
to s. 68 as amended before the Appellate Authority or High 
Court, the order of High Court dismissing the petition atta1::e : 
finality - Principle of Constructive Res Judicata also applies 
E 
to writ proceedings - Not invoking of period of /imitation by 
the Authorities for initiation of proceedings for forfeiture of the 
properties that by itself would not be sufficient to attract wrath 
of Article 14 of the Constitution -It is not a case where the 
validity of the statute is in question - Moreover, Parliament F 
exclude the applicability of the period of limitation in term of 
) 
amended provision u/s 68C of the Act - No case has been 
made to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of 
India, 1950-Article 14. 
NDPS Act, 1985 -Economic aspects - Scope of -
G 
Discussed. 
State Government of Maharasthra passed an order 
of preventive detention against the husband of the 
appellant under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit 
967 
H 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
Act. However, her husband had not been taken in custody 
by the police/authorities. A proceeding was initiated 
against her in term of Chapter V-A of the Act by serving 
her a show cause notice for confiscation of the properties 
B allegedly acquired by her illegally. Aggrieved the appellant 
preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal 
directed to confiscate the properties. The order was 
challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition. The 
petition was dismissed by the High Court insofar as the 
C order of confiscation of the properties was concerned but 
in regard to the confiscation of three bank accounts, the 
matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh. In 
the meantime, the NDPS Act was amended. An Application 
purported to be for rectification having regard to the said 
0 amendment, was filed by the appellant before.the Tribunal, 
praying for setting aside the order passed by it as also 
the order ot the competent authority passed earlier. The 
Application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Appeal 
preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by 
the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
E 
Appellant contended that a classification made in a 
statute by way of under inclusion would not validate the 
proviso to Section 68E of the NDPS Act as it stood prior 
to 2001 insofar as there did not exist any valid or cogent 
F reason for not providing the period of limitation of six 
years in respect of a person who was charged for 
commission of an offence relating to illicit traffic vis-a-vis 
a person who is sought to be detained under a preventive 
detention; and that the show cause notice did not contain 
G any reason which was required to be recorded in terms 
of Section 68E read with Section 68H of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The order of the Appellate Authority was 
H the subject matter of the writ petition. The contentions 
SMT. HEENA KAUSAR v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY 
969 
raised before this Court were not raised before the said A 
Authority or before the High Court. The order of the High 
Court dated 15.12.1999 attained finality. [Para 9] [975-C] 
1.2 The property in question stood forfeited to the 
State Government. The said proceedings cannot be 
B 
" 
permitted to be reopened. Only because in relation to the 
bank accounts, the matter was remanded, during 
pendency whereof, the proviso appended to s.68C of 
Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act was inserted, 
the same by itself, would not give rise to another cause of 
action so as to enable the appellant to raise the c 
contentions which he could and ought to have raised in 
the earlier proceedings. The principle of 'Constr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.