Call Us Now
In NDPS cases, particularly those involving trafficking at scale, the investigating authorities may initiate proceedings to forfeit property alleged to have been acquired from drug trafficking. Such forfeiture proceedings are separate from the criminal trial and are conducted before the Competent Authority appointed under the NDPS Act or under SAFEMA. Aggarwal and Associates represents clients in forfeiture proceedings before the Competent Authority, protecting their property rights at every stage.
SAFEMA — the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 — is a law that provides for the forfeiture of illegally acquired property from persons convicted of offences under the Customs Act, FERA, or the NDPS Act. SAFEMA continues to have relevance in NDPS cases through its interaction with NDPS forfeiture provisions.
Chapter VA of the NDPS Act (Sections 68A to 68Z) provides a comprehensive framework for the forfeiture of property acquired through drug trafficking:
A Competent Authority is appointed under Section 68C to identify, freeze, seize, and ultimately forfeit illegally acquired property. The Competent Authority can act against the accused person or any relative, associate, or agent in possession of the property. Freezing of property under Section 68F can happen during investigation, before any forfeiture order is passed. Once satisfied, the Competent Authority can pass a forfeiture order under Section 68I. The forfeiture of property is independent of the criminal trial — it can proceed even if the accused has been acquitted.The proceedings before the Competent Authority are quasi-judicial in nature. We represent clients by:
Filing a detailed reply to the show-cause notice, establishing the legitimate source of the property. Producing documentary evidence such as income tax returns, sale deeds, bank statements, and inheritance records. Cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses and challenging the allegation that property was acquired from drug proceeds. Filing applications against interim freeze orders under Section 68F where the freeze is without legal basis. Protecting the rights of third parties — such as family members or creditors — who have a genuine legal interest in the property.In some cases, alongside criminal proceedings and forfeiture, the Government may issue a detention order under PIT NDPS (Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988), which permits preventive detention without trial. We advise on the legal remedies available against such detention orders, including representation before the Advisory Board and writ petitions before the High Court.