IMPORTANT POINT
Wife whose husband s property is ordered to be forfeited under SAFEMA is not entitled to file an appeal as she is not an "aggrieved person" under Section 12(4) of SAFEMA, in the context of scheme and statutory provisions i.e. Section 2(2)(c) r/w 7(1) of the Act.

Headnote:(i) Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulations (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (= SAFEMA)-Section 12(4)-Appeal by "person aggrieved"-Meaning (Paras 5 and 6) -Detention order under COFEPOSA -Detenu absconding-His properties forfeited under SAFEMA-6 properties standing in name of detenu and 2 properties in name of his wife-Whether wife whose husband s property is ordered to be forfeited under SAFEMA is entitled to file an appeal as "aggrieved person" under Section 12(4) of the Act? (No)-Whether Hindu wife would be having interest in her husband s property as she is having right of maintenance from her husband s property? (Not in this case) (Cross Ref. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956-Sections 18, 21, 23, 27 and 28).
       Held : From the aforesaid scheme of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority would mean person whose property is held to be illegally acquired under the Act and which is to be forfeited or whose legal rights qua the said property are adversely affected. According to Black s Law Dictionary, "aggrieved party" refers to a party whose personal, pecuniary or property rights have been adversely affected by another person s actions or by a court s decree or judgment.-Also termed party aggrieved; person aggrieved." Therefore, a relative or associate, who has no interest or right in such property can not be held to be a person aggrieved. It is true that wife may be aggrieved because her husband s properties are forfeited. But that would not confer a right to file an appeal against such order. There is no infringement of her legal right. For the purposes of the Act husband and wife are different entities. If the properties standing in the name of relative or associate are forfeited on the ground that smugglers or foreign exchange manipulators were holding the said properties in their names or that such properties are legally acquired, then to that extent, for challenging the said finding, the relative or associate can be held to be person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority. But, a relative or associate can not be considered to be aggrieved if the properties belonging to the smugglers of Foreign Exchange manipulator are forfeited under the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that Hindu wife would be having interest in her husband s property as she is having right of maintenance from her husband s property. For this purpose, learned counsel referred to Sections 18, 23 and 27 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 18 only provides that Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time and if she is staying separately as provided under sub-section (2), she is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. Section 23 deals with the determination of the amount of maintenance. Section 27 provides that dependant s claim for maintenance under the Act shall not be a charge on the estate of the deceased or any portion thereof, unless one has been created by the will of the deceased, by a decree of court, by agreement between the dependant and the owner of the estate or portion, or otherwise. Section 28 further provides that where a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of the estate and if such estate is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee, if the transferee has notice of such right or if the transferee is gratuitous. At this stage, we would make it clear that the word dependant is defined under Section 21 to mean relatives of the deceased, namely, (1) his or her father; (2) his or her mother; (3) his widow, so long as she does not remarry but does not include the wife whose husband is surviving. In any case admittedly no charge for maintenance was created in favour of the appellant on the properties which are forfeited. She has not suffered any legal grievance and has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. (Paras 9 and 10)
       Held consequently : In the result, the appeal is dismissed (Para 12)
       (ii) Reformation of Law-Re-introduction of deleted provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of IPC 1860 suggested by Judiciary to Legislature.
       Held : Before parting with the judgment, we would observe that it is difficult to comprehend the reason for not including a person who is convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the definition of Section 2(2)(c) of the Act. It appears that for controlling the cancerous growth of corruption apart from further deterrent provisions, illegally acquired properties by means of corrupt practices could be forfeited under the provisions by suitable amendment in the Act. The question whether the time is ripe for such amendment or not is to be decided by the Legislature. However, we cannot turn our eyes to the fact that because of ostentatious or vulgar show of wealth by few or because of mad race of becoming rich and acquiring properties overnight or because of change of environment in the society by adoption of materialistic approach, cancerous growth of corruption and illegal gains or profits has affected the moral standards of the people and all forms of governmental administration. It is to be mentioned that under the Indian Penal Code, various punishments are provided in Section 53 which include forfeiture of property and Sections 61 and 62 provided sentence of forfeiture of property. However, Sections 61 and 62 were deleted by Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921. But considering the situation prevailing in the society, it appears that the said provisions are required to be re-introduced so as to have deterrent effect on those who are bent upon to accumulate wealth at the cost of the society by misusing their post or power. We hope that the Legislature would consider this aspect appropriately. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Short question requiring consideration in this appeal is-whether wife whose husband s property is ordered to be forfeited under the Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the SAFEMA") is entitled to file an appeal as "person aggrieved" under Section 12(4) of the Act?

2. Before dealing with the contentions, facts in nutshell are that the Government of India issued detention order dated 16.11.1995 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA") against one Suresh Manoharlal Jumani, resident of Khar (West), Mumbai. It appears that the order of detention was not implemented as he was absconding. However, his detention order is neither revoked nor quashed by any court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA, competent authority issued notice dated 31.12.1996 to Suresh Manoharlal Jumani and his wife Smt. Shobha Suresh Jumani to show cause why the properties mentioned therein should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under the Act. The competent authority divided the properties in two parts-(1) standing in the name of detenue i.e. properties mentioned as Items No. 1 to 6; and (2) properties mentioned as Items No. 7 and 8, which were standing in the name of appellant. Notice to the appellant was issued as two properties were standing in her name and as she was considered to be covered by the provisions of Section 2(2)(c) of the SAFEMA. After giving opportunity of hearing and of producing relevant material evidence, competent authority by order dated 23.8.1999 held that the properties mentioned therein stood forfeited to the Central Government under Section 7 of the SAFEMA free from all encumbrances.

3. That order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal for the forfeited property at New Delhi by filing appeal under Section 12. By order dated 5.1.2000, with regard to the forfeited property, i.e. Item Nos. 1 to 6 which were in the name of detenue, the Tribunal directed that as the detenue has not filed the appeal, the appeal was not maintainable and the counsel should confine his arguments only in respect of Items No. 7 and 8. The learned counsel sought time for making his submission and the matter was adjourned to 4.2.2000. On 4.2.2000 the matter was heard qua Item No. 7 and 8 which were standing in the name of the appellant and the appeal was dismissed on 8.2.2000. Thereafter, appellant preferred Miscellaneous Petition No. 17/Bom of 2000 in FPA No. 40/BOM/99 for reviewing the order on the ground that the appellant was having interest in Items No. 1 to 6 as she had vested right of maintenance from her husband and his properties, and, therefore, she was person aggrieved . That contention was negatived by the Tribunal by order dated 22.2.2000. The High Court of Bombay by order dated 6.2.2000 dismissed Crl. Writ Petition No. 653 of 2000 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.

4. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel Mr. H.L. Tiku appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and erroneous because "any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority" is entitled to file an appeal under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA and appellant being wife of the detenue is an aggrieved person. He also submitted that the appellant apart from being wife is also entitled to have charge for maintenance from the properties which are forfeited and, therefore, she is `person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority.

5. First we would reiterate that the words any aggrieved person are found in several statutes. However, the meaning of the expression "aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 868

IMPORTANT POINTWife whose husband s property is ordered to be forfeited under SAFEMA is not entitled to file an appeal as she is not an "aggrieved person" under Section 12(4) of SAFEMA, in the context of scheme and statutory provisions i.e. Section 2(2)(c) r/w 7(1) of the Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Wife whose husband s property is ordered to be forfeited under SAFEMA is not entitled to file an appeal as she is not an "aggrieved person" under Section 12(4) of SAFEMA, in the context of scheme and statutory provisions i.e. Section 2(2)(c) r/w 7(1) of the Act.