Back
ILESH J. VORA, VIMAL K. VYAS
Zulekhaben W/o Fakir Mohmmad Haji Hasan Subhaniya – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority Safema – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by respondent no.1 - Competent Authority herein under Sections 7 and 9 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short “SAFEMA”) dated 14.12.1999 and subsequent order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 20.07.2001, confirming the order of the competent authority.
2. Originally petition was filed by Smt. Zulekhaben Fakirmahammad Haji Hasan, who was the wife of Fakirmahammad Haji Hasan Subhania (Detenue), who was detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (For short “COFEPOSA”). Pending the proceedings of this petition, Smt. Zulekhaben passed away. The petitioners no.1.1 to 1.7 are the legal heirs of Smt. Zulekhaben.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file this petition stated to be as under:
3.1 Fakirmahammad Haji Hasan who happened to be father of the petitioners was detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA by the Government of India, Ministry of Fin
The Appellate Authority must reconsider the forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA, ensuring the petitioners can present evidence of legal acquisition.
Notice under SAFEMA can be issued to relatives of the convict, not just the convict themselves, and delays in proceedings do not invalidate the actions taken.
A detention order's revocation invalidates associated property forfeiture actions unless a direct nexus to illegal gains is established, emphasizing due process protections.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
The burden of proof lies on the affected person to establish the legality of property acquisition in forfeiture proceedings under COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.
Revocation of detention order passed under COFEPOSA is not contemplated on a statement given on behalf of Union of India.
The issuance of notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a definitive nexus between the properties and illegal activities; prima facie evidence suffices for initiating proceedings.
The court clarified that the issuance of Section 6(1) notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct nexus between the detenu and properties unless they are held by relatives; mere reason....
The issuance of a notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct link between the properties and the detenu; prima facie reasoning suffices for forfeiture proceedings.
The court emphasized strict compliance with statutory requirements under SAFEMA for forfeiture notices, asserting that failure to provide adequate reasoning renders the notice and subsequent proceedi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
