ORDER :

This appeal arises out of a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 28th May, 2004 by which a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by one Chandra Kumar Jain was dismissed.

2. The said Chandra Kumar Jain was preventively detained by an order dated 05.05.2003 issued under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA Act"). The background on which the detention order came to be passed is as follows :-

3. Chandra Kumar Jain was intercepted on 7.3.2003 while he was about to board a flight scheduled to leave from Delhi to Dubai from the Indira Gandhi International Airport by the Custom Authorities. A Foreign and Indian currency cumulatively valued at Rs. 64,26,756/- (Rupees Sixth Four Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Six) was seized from him, the details of which are mentioned in the judgment under appeal. He was an employee of the Government of India working with the CBI from 1984. The High Court recorded that Chandra Mohan made 161 personal trips abroad mostly without taking any permission from the Government.

4. The High Court rejected the challenge to the said detention order and the writ petition holding that "the detention order was passed with due care and deliberation and taking into consideration all the facts and surrounding circumstances".

Hence this appeal.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears that the abovementioned Chandra Kumar Jain died. By an order dated 09.05.2008 of this Court, three of his legal representatives came to be substituted as appellants in the said appeal.

6. The preventive detention order is for the year 2003 for a period of one year. It expired by afflux of time. Chandra Kumar Jain had, in fact, been detained in custody for one full year under the abovementioned order.

7. Confronted with the question as to the need to examine the correctness of the detention order today, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter being referred to as "SAFEMA") have been initiated for forfeiture of certain properties on the ground that these properties are the ill-gotten wealth of deceased appellant Chandra Kumar Jain. Such proceedings could be initiated only against a limited class of persons. One of the classes being persons who had been detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act (under Section 2(2b) of the Act). If the detention order is held to be illegal, such proceedings under the SAFEMA cannot be continued and, therefore, this Court is required to examine the legality of the detention order.

8. We are of the opinion that this appeal need not be examined because under the Scheme of the SAFEMA, properties of five classes of persons could be forfeited by the Government only after an appropriate inquiry contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The persons whose properties are liable for such forfeiture are :

(i) Persons who are found guilty of the various offences specified under Section 2(2a);

(ii) Persons who have been detained under the COFEPOSA Act;

(iii) Every person who is a relative of a person falling under Section 2(2a) or (2b);

(iv) Associates of a person falling under Section 2(2a) or (2b); and

(v) Holders of any property which was at any time previously been held by persons referred to in Section 2(2a) and (2b). The expression `relative' and `associate' are explained in Section 2.

Section 2 of the SAFEMA reads as under :

"Section 2. Application (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply only to the persons specified in sub-section (2).

(2) The persons referred to in sub-section(1) are the following, namely :

(a) every person

(i) who has been convicted under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878), or the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), of an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees; or

(ii) who has been convicted under the Foreign Exchange Regulatio