JUDGMENT : 1. The 1st petitioner, who is the husband of the 2nd petitioner herein, was arrested on 27.10.2006 along with another person in connection with the seizure of 39 Kgs of Ganja from near to the FCI food storage depot at Avaneeswaram. 2. In the course of investigation, the Investigating officer received reliable information that property having an extent of 17 cents belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein was acquired out of illicit drug trafficking. Exercising his powers under section 68-F(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the aforesaid property was seized and the said order was sent for confirmation to the Competent Authority as mandated under Section 68-F(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985. By Exhibit P1 order, the same was confirmed. 3. As things would have it, the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner as Crl.A.No. 583 of 2014 came up for consideration of this Court and by judgement dated 16.03.2015, this Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The conviction and sentence imposed on him was set aside. Though more than a year has elapsed, the petitioners assert that the finding of acquittal has not been challenged. 4. It appears that while the Criminal Appeal was pending before this Court, 2nd petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act, 1985 with an application for condoning the delay of 2199 days. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal after the expiry of 60 days from the service of confirmation order. However, it was ordered that for the relief in the matter of property forfeited under the impugned order consequent to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.03.2015 of this Court in Crl.A. No. 583 of 2014, the petitioners could approach the concerned authority for further necessary action in accordance with law. 5. It is in the said circumstances that the instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (i) Call for the records leading to the case. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order, directing the respondents 5 and 6 to release the petitioners property from the charges occurred pursuant to Exhibit P1 order. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order, directing the respondents 5 and 6 to release the petitioners property from the charges occurred pursuant to Exhibit P1 order. (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or declaration holding that the charge on the petitioners property stands automatically released in view of Exhibit P2 judgment. (iv) Such other writ direction or order in favour of the petitioners as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above case. 6. Heard the submissions advanced. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners limited his submission to Section 68-Z of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and contended that in view of the relevant provisions the property which has been seized or frozen is liable to be released. 8. The statement filed by the 4th respondent would reveal that that the Government has accorded sanction to file SLP before Supreme Court of India and earnest efforts have been taken in that regard. On its basis, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to secure the reliefs prayed for. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 10. Evidently, the conviction recorded by the trial court has been set aside by Ext. P2 judgement dated 16.03.2015. More than 1½ years have elapsed but it is common ground that no appeal has been preferred till date. 11. Section 68-Z of the NDPS Act reads as follows: “68-Z - Release of property in certain cases - (1) Where the detention order of a detenu is set aside or withdrawn, properties seized or frozen under this Chapter shall stand released. (2) Where any person referred to in clause (a) or Clause (b) or clause (cc) of sub-section (2) of Section 68 A has been acquitted or discharged from the charges under this Act or any other corresponding law of any other country and the acquittal was not appealed against or which appealed against, the appeal was disposed of as a consequence of which such property could not be forfeited or warrant of arrest or authorisation of arrest issued against such person has been withdrawn, then, property seized or frozen under this Chapter shall stand released.” 12. Clearly the property was seized by categorizing the petitioners as persons falling under Section 68-A (2) (cc ) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The 2nd petitioner, who is the owner of the property also came under the said provision, being the relative of the 1st petitioner. Section 68-A(2) (d) and 68 B (i) would clearly enable the authorized officer to seize the property of the 2nd petitioner if there was material to conclude that the property was acquired from the proceeds of the crime. However, section 68-Z is clear and unambiguous when it states that the person referred to in clause (cc) of sub-section (2) of Section 68-A has been acquitted or discharged from the charges under this Act and the acquittal was not appealed, as a consequence of which, such property could not be forfeited, or warrant of arrest or authorisation of arrest issued against such person has been withdrawn, then, property seized or frozen under this Chapter shall stand released. 13. From Exhibit R1 (a) communication issued by the Circle Inspector of Excise to the Competent authority which is dated 8.9.2016, it is pellucid that only certain steps have been taken to file Appeal before the Apex Court. In other words though more than a year and a half has passed after the order of acquittal, no appeal has been filed till date. Hence, this Court will not be justified in refusing the relief to the petitioners in view of the unequivocal manner in which section 68-Z of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been worded. 14. In the result, this Writ Petition will stand allowed. The freezing order dated 25.03.2008 of the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Officer, Karunagappally and Ext.P1 confirmation order dated 24.04.2008 of the Competent Authority is set aside. The 2nd petitioner will be restored with possession of the seized property within four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.