JUDGMENT :

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The conundrum in these appeals is: when the Competent Authority? claims that the subject property (to be forfeited) is that of the convict (V.P. Selvarajan) and ostensibly held by the relatives of the convict (respondents herein), whether it is mandatory to serve a primary notice under Section 6(1) of the 1976 Act¹ upon such convict with copy thereof to his relatives under Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act, and non-service of such primary notice upon the convict would vitiate the entire proceedings initiated only against his relatives?

¹[under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short, “1976 Act”) ]

2. The High Court of Judicature at Madras² vide impugned judgment³ held that Section 6 of the 1976 Act leaves no room for doubt that the primary notice must be served on the convict, wherein the convict is required to indicate the sources of his income, earnings or assets, out of which or by means of which he had acquired the properties sought to be forfeited; and non-service of such notice upon the co