Back
A. Y. KOGJE, RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
Induben C Sheth – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the foundation for challenging the safema proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenging the conformity of detention orders with the safema act requirements. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 3. quashing prior orders based on established procedural errors. (Para 30 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed primarily against an order dated 15.11.1990 (Annexure-H) passed by the appellate Tribunal for forfeiture property, New Delhi in P.A.No.01/AHD/90. The proceedings before the appellate Tribunal was an appeal against the order dated 21.12.1988 by the competent authority The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short “SAFEMA”) passed in CA/AHD/2(c)/I-21/83-84.
2. These proceedings were initiated under Section 6 of the SAFEMA Act, wherein the petitioner was issued notice under Section 6 of based on order of detention dated 18.10.1982 in CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT , 1974 (for short “COFEPOSA”) against one Rekhaben Chimanlal Sheth, who is the younger sister of the present petitioner.
3. The petition was filed in the year 1991 and
A detention order's revocation invalidates associated property forfeiture actions unless a direct nexus to illegal gains is established, emphasizing due process protections.
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.
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 bona fide purchaser cannot claim rights to property transferred during ongoing forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA, as the vendor lacked title to transfer.
The absence of a clear nexus between illegal activities and property acquisition invalidates forfeiture under SAFEMA, and the burden to prove lawful acquisition lies on the appellant.
The Appellate Authority must reconsider the forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA, ensuring the petitioners can present evidence of legal acquisition.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
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
