Gauhati High Court
Runu Das vs The Union Of India And Anr on 2 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010025892023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/766/2023
RUNU DAS
W/O- DIPAK DAS, R/O-JANAKPUR, KAHILIPARA, MANDAKINI PATH, H NO.
36, UJJALNAGAR, P.O JATIA, DISPUR, GHY-781019
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
MIN OF FINANCE, DEPTT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:OFFICE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATOR
SAFEM (FOP)A
1976 AND NDPSA
1985
KOLKATA 10-B
MIDDLETON ROW
1ST FLOOR
INCOME TAX BUILDING
KOLKATA- 70007
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MR. P TELI,MR H DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. K K PARASAR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 02-09-2025
Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned
Page No.# 2/8
CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to a notice dated
30-12-2015, issued by the Competent Authority & Administrator at Kolkata under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1985)
requiring her to show-cause under Sub-Section (1) of Section 68H of the Act of, 1985, as to
why the properties as mentioned in the "Schedule of Properties" are not to be declared to
have been illegally acquired property/ properties and forfeited to the Central Government
under the provisions of the said Act of 1985.
3. The petitioner having not responded to the said notice dated 30-12-2015, a hearing
was fixed in the matter and the petitioner vide notice dated 14/17 October, 2022 was
required to appear before the Competent Authority & Administrator at Kolkata, for finalising
the presumption drawn with regard to the property, as mentioned in the schedule to the
communication dated 30-12-2015. As projected in the present writ petition, the petitioner is
the wife of one Dipak Das, who was found to be involved in dealing with narcotic substance
and accordingly, on 05-01-2013, while a consignment of ganja was being transported in two
vehicles, a search and seizure being held, the said contraband material was found to be
recovered from the possession of the husband of the petitioner, Dipak Das. Accordingly, a
case was registered in the matter and the learned Special Judge took cognizance thereof, and
eventually, charges came to be framed against the said Dipak Das and others found to be
involved in the matter. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court in NDPS Case No.
24/2013, convicted the husband of the petitioner, i.e. Dipak Das under Section 20(b)(C),
Section 8(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentencing
him to undergo Imprisonment for 14 years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh)
Page No.# 3/8
in default to undergo further Imprisonment for 06 (six) months. The husband of the
petitioner was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 14 (fourteen) years
and fine of Rs. 1 Lakh with default stipulation under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The
sentences so imposed were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by his conviction by
the Trial Court, the husband of the petitioner had assailed the same before this Court by way
of instituting a Criminal Appeal being Crl. Appeal (J) No. 05/2015. The said criminal appeal
was taken for consideration by this Court and vide judgment and order dated 27-02-2020, the
same came to be dismissed upholding the conviction of the husband of the petitioner by the
Trial Court.
4. Pursuant to the conviction of the husband of the petitioner, the Competent Authority
after identifying the properties involved vide order dated 30-12-2015 recording reasons to
believe that the same were so obtained from proceeds of crime, forwarded the same to the
husband of the petitioner, vide notice issued under Section 68H(1) of the Act of 1985 on 30-
12-2015. A copy of the said notice along with the enclosures, i.e. reasons to believe recorded
by the Competent Authority, was also forwarded to the petitioner, herein. In the schedule of
property, more particularly, with regard to the immovable property which was held to have
been acquired from the proceeds of crime, received by the husband of the petitioner, is a land
measuring 2 Katha existing in the name of petitioner, herein, along with a house standing
thereon.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice dated 30-12-2015 and the further
notice dated 14/17 October, 2022 requiring her to appear before the Competent Authority, for
further proceedings in the matter, had approached this Court by way of instituting the present
proceedings.
Page No.# 4/8
6. Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the above noted facts,
has referred to a deed of sale dated 19-11-2011 and has contended that the said property
was brought by the petitioner in her own name. On a query being made by this Court as to
the source of income of the petitioner from where she has brought the said property, Ms.
Som had filed an additional affidavit on 04-08-2025 and had, therein, contended that the said
property was brought by her, on assistance being extended to her by her mother and sister. It
was contended that the payment of the amount to the vendor of the property, and the
registration charges involved, were borne by the mother and sister of the petitioner.
Accordingly, Ms. Som submits that the respondent authorities could not have drawn adverse
presumption with regard to the said immovable property existing in the name of the
petitioner, herein. In the above premises, Ms. Som submits that the respondent authorities
having not carried out a due investigation in the matter and only of the basis of a suspicion
having also incorporated the landed property existing in her name to also have been illegally
acquired property, from the proceeds of crime received by her husband, the impugned notice
dated 30-12-2015 along with the notice dated 14/17 October, 2022, would mandate an
interference by this Court.
7. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Parashar along with Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC, have contended
that the respondent authorities had strictly complied with the provisions of Chapter 5A of the
said Act of 1985 and had after recording its reasons to believe, proceeded to issue the notice
dated 30-12-2015, to the husband of the petitioner as well as the petitioner, herein. The
petitioner had, however, not responded to the said notice. It is further contended that the
petitioner was duly informed of the date of hearing fixed in the matter vide issuance of notice
dated 14/17 October, 2022. However, she had also not responded to the same and had
Page No.# 5/8
instituted the present proceeding.
8. It is submitted by Ms. Gayan, learned CGC, that it is open to the petitioner to bring on
record before the Competent Authority & Administrator, NDPS Act, 1985, materials to justify
that the immovable property as identified in the notice dated 30-12-2015 was not so acquired
basing on the proceeds of crime, that may have been received by the husband of the
petitioner. However, the petitioner had failed to discharge her burden in this connection. Ms.
Gayan, on instruction, has submitted that although the hearing in the matter was fixed on 16-
12-2022 vide notice dated 14/17 October, 2022, the said matter has not been proceeded
with, on account of pendency of the present proceeding.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials
available on record.
10. It is an admitted position that the husband of the petitioner was on 05-01-2013,
arrested in connection with dealing with contraband articles and a case in this connection was
registered against him. The cognizance of the said case was taken by the learned Special
Judge, Kamrup (M) in NDPS Case No. 24/2013. The charges being framed and the petitioner
and other accused having contended to be not guilty, a trial was held in the matter. On
conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the husband of the petitioner
Dipak Das, in the matter and had sentenced him to imprisonment, as noticed hereinabove.
Being aggrieved with his conviction, the husband of the petitioner had instituted a criminal
appeal before this Court being Crl. Appeal (J) No. 05/2015. The Division Bench of this Court
on a detailed consideration of the issues arising in the matter was pleased vide judgment and
order dated 27-02-2020, to dismiss the said Criminal Appeal, upholding the conviction of the
Page No.# 6/8
husband of the petitioner, by the Trial Court.
11. It is seen that after conviction of the petitioner by the Trial Court and the dismissal of
the said Criminal Appeal by this Court, the Competent Officer had traced and identified
certain movable and immovable properties which were suspected to have been so acquired
through the proceeds of crime, received by the husband of the petitioner, herein. The
properties so identified to have been acquired from the proceeds of crime, also includes a
plot of land measuring 2 Katha and a house standing, thereon, which was so acquired in the
name of the petitioner, herein. The pleadings of the petitioner brought on record in the
present proceeding reveals that a contention has been raised that the said property, was so
acquired, basing on the assistance extended in the matter to the petitioner by her mother
and sister. It is further submitted that the mother and the sister of the petitioner had borne
the cost of the land, as well as the registration charges. While the said statement has been
made, no materials has been brought on record to highlight the source of income of the
mother as well as the sister of the petitioner, basing on which the said payment for acquiring
the land in question, was extended to the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, this Court is not in a
position to arrive at a conclusion that the property in question existing in the name of the
petitioner, was so acquired basing on the assistance extended to her by her mother and sister
and also that the mother and the sister had adequate income for the purpose.
12. As noticed hereinabove, this Court, on a perusal of the materials brought on record,
does not find any inconsistency either in the reason to believe recorded by the Competent
Authority, as well as the notice dated 30-12-2015 issued to the husband of the petitioner and
the petitioner, herein. The said proceeding having not been concluded and it having been
brought to the notice of this Court by Ms. Gayan, learned CGC, that the said proceedings
Page No.# 7/8
have been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present writ petition before this
Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner would have an opportunity to
place her stand in the matter, before the Competent Authority and accordingly, in the event,
the said proceeding is directed to be taken to its logical conclusion, no prejudice would be
caused to the petitioner, herein.
13. In view of the above conclusion drawn by this Court and this Court having also held
that there was no inconsistency in the initiation of the proceeding in the matter against the
husband of the petitioner and the petitioner, herein, this Court requires the petitioner, herein,
to approach the Competent Authority & Administrator, NPDS Act, 1985 at Kolkata who had
issued the notice dated 14/17 October, 2022 and to file appropriate application before the
said authority within a period of 02 (two) months from today and therein bring on record all
requisite materials to dispel the presumption drawn in the matter that the immovable
property as incorporated in the schedule of property to the notice dated 30-12-2015 was so
acquired, out of the proceeds of crime received by the husband of the petitioner. The
petitioner shall in her said application also bring on record materials which would establish
that the said property was so acquired by her out of the assistance extended to her by her
mother and sister. On such application being filed along with a certified copy of this order, the
Competent Authority shall proceed, to consider the same, by granting an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, herein, and thereafter on verifying the contentions raised by the
petitioner, proceed to take the pending proceedings to its logical conclusion. It is also
provided that prior to passing of appropriate orders, on conclusion of hearing in the matter,
after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, herein, the possession of the petitioner over the
property, in question, be not disturbed.
Page No.# 8/8
14. In the event, the petitioner in terms of the liberty granted hereinabove, does not
submit any application, along with requisite materials within a period of 02 (two) months
from today, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter ex-parte
and take the same to its logical conclusion in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1985.
With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
