Case Details: Angrej Singh @ Gopi vs. Competent Authority, Delhi (2025) 35 Centax 230 (ATFP)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Balesh Kumar & Rajesh Malhotra, Members
- S/Shri Anil Kumar & Vishal Mahajan, Advs., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Rishabh Sharma & Nikhil Kaushik, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant had been convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of heroin and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years along with fine. Consequent to such conviction, the competent authority initiated proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 for forfeiture of his properties, namely, agricultural land and a residential house (kothi), alleging that they were acquired out of illicit income from drug trafficking. The appellant contended that the agricultural land had been purchased by his father from funds obtained through a mortgage or from the sale proceeds of another land and that the residential house had been constructed on land earlier sold by his father to other persons. It was further claimed that his father had sufficient agricultural income and that he himself earned income as a kabaddi player and from sale of milk. The matter was accordingly placed before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (ATFP).
AFTP Held
The ATFP held that the forfeiture of the agricultural land and residential house was justified, as the appellant had failed to substantiate any legitimate source of income for their acquisition. The Tribunal noted that the alleged mortgage deed was neither registered nor notarised, and no documentary proof such as Jamabandi, Girdavari, or bank statements had been furnished to corroborate the claimed agricultural or leasing income. The plea regarding sale consideration retained from an earlier land sale was also rejected as improbable in absence of evidence of deposit or utilisation. As regards the residential house, the Tribunal found contradictions in the appellant’s claims regarding ownership of the underlying land and the year and cost of construction, observing that no registered or notarised deed or attested Jamabandi was produced as required under the Registration Act, 1908. Referring to the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, it was held that the appellant failed to prove any credible legal source for acquisition of the forfeited properties. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
