Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohd. Aslam Khan Sanaulla, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking to set aside an order confiscating cash amounts of Rs. 3 lacs recovered from him and Rs. 5,75,000 recovered from his wife's residence during investigation in NDPS Special Case No. 159 of 1992. The confiscation order was passed on 23.7.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 63(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which was dismissed on 2.2.1999. However, the petitioner did not disclose the filing of the appeal in the writ petition, which was filed on 4.10.1997. The respondent No.1, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, argued that the appeal had been dismissed and the order had attained finality, and the petition should be dismissed in limine. The court noted that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact of filing the appeal, and even though the petition was filed before the appeal was disposed of, the order of confiscation had become final. The court held that once an order passed in accordance with law attains finality, it does not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed for suppression of material fact and because the order had attained finality.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Confiscation of Property - Suppression of Fact - The petitioner challenged the confiscation of cash under the NDPS Act but suppressed the fact that he had filed an appeal under Section 63(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which was dismissed on 2.2.1999. The court held that the order of confiscation had attained finality and the petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of material fact. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the confiscation order is maintainable when the petitioner has suppressed the fact of filing an appeal under Section 63(3) of the NDPS Act and the appeal has been dismissed, making the order final.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition for suppression of material fact and because the order of confiscation had attained finality.
Law Points
- Suppression of material fact
- Finality of order
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
