Law: Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977

Section: 31

Prevention of Smuggling Act (XII of 1977)--- ----S. 31---Property suspected to be acquired by smuggling---Restriction imposed on such property after issuance of notice under S.31 of Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977---Non-issuance of notice to person having a third-party interest in such property---Effect---Release/Unfreezing of property---Notice under S.31 of Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 had been issued in connection with the property in question as it had been allegedly purchased by the accused through proceeds of narcotics smuggling---Case regarding said property was pending in the Trial Court---Respondent/alleged purchaser submitted application before Trial Court contending that she had purchased the property in question and in such regard a sub-lease had been executed---Trial Court allowed application of respondent and released the property from the ambit of S.31 of Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977---Anti-Narcotics Force (appellant) contended that respondent was a front person of the accused and mere registration of a document (sub-lease) was not a certificate to abolish the status of the subject property---Validity---Record showed that property in question had been purchased by the respondent in the year 1994, whereas notice under S.31 of Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, imposing restriction upon the subject property was issued in the year 1996---Said notice was issued by the Court upon the accused and his associates, but no notice was served upon the respondent/alleged purchaser---Serving of said notice upon the respondent was not only mandatory but also practical since she had third party interest in the property---Since no notice was served upon the respondent, she appeared before the Trial Court, which released the property---Prosecution had not been able to establish any links or business deals between the respondent and the accused and his associates---Prosecution had sufficient time to collect tangible evidence to connect respondent with criminal activities of the accused, but same was not done---Prosecution had also not collected any evidence to prove that respondent was not resourceful and did not have the means to purchase the subject…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492