1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the petitioner being Union of India as competent authority and administrator under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as SAFEMA), whereas respondent though duly served, has remained absent.

2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Shukla at length and perused the relevant record, so also law applicable to such cases.

3. The brief facts arising from the record so as to drag the issue till this Court is to the effect that;

3.1 Brother of the present respondent was detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (herein after referred to as the COFEPOSA Act) by the petitioner authority on or about 28.04.1975.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that during investigation carried out by them to find out the properties acquired by the detenue by illegal means it was found that respondent has acquired some properties illegally and did not file any income tax returns till 1969 when he purchased the property and filed returns of the income tax for the previous year i.e. from 1965 onwards without producing any books of accounts.

3.3 Therefore, petitioner had issued show-cause notice under Section 6 of the SAFEMA calling upon the respondent to explain the source of income and to show cause that why such properties should not be forfeited under SAFEMA.

3.4 It is alleged that even after ample opportunities, respondent has not produced any evidence to prove his business activities, so as to justify the income and purchasing of properties which are subject matter of this litigation and for which, order of forfeiture was passed by the petitioner. Details of such properties are not much material at this stage and, therefore, reproduction of such minute details is avoided since such details are available on record in the form of pleadings and in impugned order and judgment.

3.5 It is also pleaded that petitioner has adjudicated the show-cause notice and thereafter order of forfeiture of all the properties found in the name of respondent and covered under show cause notice, was passed on 25.06.1999 except for the ornaments. Such order was challenged by the respondent in Appeal being FPA No. 27 & 28/Bom/1999/447 before the Appellate Tribunal for the Forfeited Property at New Delhi which has, by its judgment and order dated 17.06.2009 quashed and set aside the show-cause notice and order of forfeiture of properties by allowing the appeal.

4. Such impugned order dated 17.06.2009 by the appellate Tribunal is a consolidated order in two appeals being FPA Nos. 27 and 28 of 1999. Since similar order of forfeiture was passed against two brothers of detenue namely Abbas Mulla Fazle Abbas and Ismail Mulla Fazle Abbas. It is also evident from record that the Chairman of such appellate authority is generally a retired Judge of High Court with one member from administrative or revenue side.

5. On perusal of such impugned judgment, it becomes clear that the respondent was working as angadia and, therefore, competent authority has believed that when no books of accounts have been kept, there is no basis to support the contentions of the respondent that he was carrying out business as angadia and, thereby he was having income and capacity to purchase some properties.

6. Whereas, it is contended by the respondent, before the competent authority that there are several decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court that relatives and associates can brought in such proceedings only for the purpose of ensuring that whether illegally acquired properties of the convict or detenue are acquired or kept in their names, and in that case they do not escape from the net of the provisions of SAFEMA and COFEPOSA Act. But the only idea is to reach the property of the detenue and, therefore, the independent properties of the relatives and friends, which are not connected to the detenue, are not