Shri Ekramul Ansari Shri Tajamul Ansari vs The Competent Authority New Delhi

Headnote:(A) Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) - Sections 2(2)(b), 3(c), 6, 7, 8 - Burden of proof - Forfeiture of properties acquired from illegal earnings - Properties held in name of relatives - Show cause notice to deceased person - Small bank balances - Nexus with illegal income.

(B) Under Section 8 of SAFEMA, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6 is not illegally acquired property lies on the person affected. The failure to discharge this burden makes the property liable for forfeiture. (Paras 8, 9)

(C) The definition of “illegally acquired properties” under Section 3(c) is wide and includes properties acquired partly or wholly from illegal activity, and extends to properties held in the names of relatives or associates to prevent screening of assets. The burden on the relative or associate is to establish that the property has not been acquired with monies provided by the detenu/convict. (Para 9, citing Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas)

(D) Issuance of a show cause notice to a deceased person does not necessarily vitiate forfeiture proceedings if no prejudice is caused and the properties are found to have been acquired from the appellant's funds. (Para 11) (E) Small bank balances, where amounts are too petty to correlate with the illegal earnings of the affected person, may not be forfeited as illegally acquired property. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The first appellant was detained under COFEPOSA for smuggling fake Indian currency notes. Two immovable properties were purchased in the name of his mother (since deceased) and small bank accounts in the mother's and brother's names were forfeited under SAFEMA. The mother died before the show cause notice was issued. The appellant claimed the properties were acquired from the mother's own savings and his lawful earnings as a tailor abroad. The Competent Authority forfeited all properties.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove lawful sources for the immovable properties; remittances to the mother's account far exceeded his declared salary of 800 AED per month, and no explanation was provided for the excess. The bank balances of the mother (Rs. 2,013) and the brother (Rs. 173 and Rs. 24) were too small to establish a nexus with illegal income. Therefore, the forfeiture of the immovable properties was upheld, while the forfeiture of the three bank accounts was set aside.

Issues: (1) Whether the appellant discharged the burden under Section 8 SAFEMA to show that the properties were not illegally acquired? (2) Whether the show cause notice issued to a deceased person invalidates the proceedings? (3) Whether small bank balances can be forfeited as illegally acquired property?

Ratio Decidendi: The burden under Section 8 SAFEMA is on the affected person; failure to explain the lawful source of funds leads to forfeiture. The immovable properties in the mother's name were acquired from the appellant's undisclosed funds exceeding his lawful earnings. However, the minimal bank balances lacked sufficient nexus to illegal earnings and therefore could not be forfeited.

Result: Appeals allowed in part. Forfeiture of the two immovable properties upheld; forfeiture of the three bank accounts set aside."

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeals against forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA for alleged illegal acquisition from smuggling proceeds. (Para 1 , 6 )

2. Appellants claim properties from lawful sources; respondent argues properties acquired from illicit funds. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Forfeiture of immovable properties upheld; forfeiture of bank account balances set aside. (Para 13 )

4. Who bears the burden of proof under Section 8 of SAFEMA to show that property is not illegally acquired?

The person affected bears the burden to demonstrate that the property was acquired from lawful sources. (Para 8 , 9 )

5. Can properties held in the names of relatives be forfeited under SAFEMA?

Yes, if the properties are traceable to the convict or detenu and the relative fails to prove they are not illegally acquired. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )

6. Does issuance of a show cause notice to a deceased person vitiate forfeiture proceedings?

No, if no prejudice is caused and the properties are shown to belong to the appellant. (Para 11 )

7. Are petty bank balances liable to be forfeited under SAFEMA?

No, if the amounts are too meagre to be correlated to unlawful earnings and no nexus is shown. (Para 10 , 12 )

FINAL ORDER

14.10.2025

This Order disposes of the Appeals Nos. FPA-146/DLI/2023 and FPA-147/DLI/2023 filed by Shri Ekramul Ansari and Shri Tajamul Ansari against the Order F. No. CA/DL/SAFEMA/02/2014-15/Vol-I dated 23.03.2023 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Competent Authority and Administrator SAFEM (FOP) A, 1976 and NDPS Act, 1985, New Delhi. The Impugned Order under Section 7 (1) & (3) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property)Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) forfeited the following properties: -

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that there is no evidence on record to show any nexus between the properties forfeited and the alleged illegal earnings of the Appellants. He cited the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Kumar vs. Union Of India [2017 (345) ELT 104 (Del)]. Ld. Counsel also stated that the properties which have been forfeited are owned by Smt. Abida Khatoon and Shri Tajamul Ansari, mother and brother of the Appellant Shri Ekramul Ansari. Ld. Counsel further stated that Smt. Abida Khatoon expired on 21.08.2015 and drew attention to the death certificate which have been filed vide Application dated 22.10.2024. Ld. Counsel challenged the validity of the proceedings since the Show Cause Notice dated 02.07.2018 was issued to a dead person.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the properties which have been forfeited had been acquired out of the own savings of the mother and the brother of the Appellant. The Appellant has claimed that the mother of the Appellant had customary jewelry and savings of her Late Husband. She had a Kisan Credit Card against which she obtained loan of Rs. 50,000/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- was taken on 14.02.2011 and further Rs. 25,000/- was taken on 16.03.2011. In this regard, the copy of the Kisan Credit Card with the said endorsement was submitted to the Ld. Competent Authority. Further, copy of the Old Age Pension Scheme Book was also submitted which showed that Late Smt. Abida Khatoon had income therefrom as well. A copy of the State Bank of India Passbook of savings account No. 11708507357 was also submitted. Ld. Counsel stated that payment receipts made by the Appellant Shri Ekramul Ansari to his mother from February, 2013 to January, 2014 had also been submitted to the Ld. Competent Authority. Ld. Counsel further stated that the Appellant Shri Ekramul Ansari worked as Tailor in Mumbai between 1990 and June, 2006 for which he earned wages of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Appellant went to Dubai in July, 2006 and as Tailor in M/s First Choice Palace, Dubai, the Appellant was paid 800 Dirham per month till April 2014 when his salary became 2000 Dirham. Ld. Counsel contended that Late Smt. Abida Khatoon acquired the impugned properties through her own savings and lawful earnings remitted by the Appellant from abroad. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants further contended that the sum of Rs. 173 and Rs. 24 in the two accounts of the brother Shri Tajamul Ansari (Appellant in connected Appeal) are from his own earnings. He argued that the amounts are so petty and the fact that the Appellant Shri Tajamul Ansari worked independently and earning income of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month, that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that this money in two accounts has nexus with alleged illegal income of his brother Shri Ekramul Ansari. Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded that the Forfeiture Order may be set aside and the Appeal may be allowed.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated that the loan taken against Kisan Credit Card is in violation of the purpose for which the Card is issued. Such loan is granted for the purchase of agricultural inputs like seeds and fertilizers. Moreover, the loan was taken in 2011 and the two properties in the name of Late Smt. Abida Khatoon were acquired in the year 2008-09 and 2013-14 i.e. much before and much after the loan, as loan of Rs. 25,000/- each was taken on 14.02.2011 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 13429

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Balesh Kumar, Member, Rajesh Malhotra, Member
Shri Ekramul Ansari Shri Tajamul Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authority New Delhi – Respondent
FPA-146/DLI/2023

Under SAFEMA, the burden of proving that property is not illegally acquired lies on the affected person; properties held in names of relatives are forfeitable if acquired from illegal earnings, but small bank balances lacking nexus to illegal income may be excluded from forfeiture.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Who bears the burden of proof under Section 8 of SAFEMA to show that property is not illegally acquired?

5. Can properties held in the names of relatives be forfeited under SAFEMA?

6. Does issuance of a show cause notice to a deceased person vitiate forfeiture proceedings?

7. Are petty bank balances liable to be forfeited under SAFEMA?

2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 13429

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTYBalesh Kumar, Member, Rajesh Malhotra, MemberShri Ekramul Ansari Shri Tajamul Ansari – AppellantVersusThe Competent Authority New Delhi – RespondentFPA-146/DLI/2023

Under SAFEMA, the burden of proving that property is not illegally acquired lies on the affected person; properties held in names of relatives are forfeitable if acquired from illegal earnings, but small bank balances lacking nexus to illegal income may be excluded from forfeiture.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Who bears the burden of proof under Section 8 of SAFEMA to show that property is not illegally acquired?

5. Can properties held in the names of relatives be forfeited under SAFEMA?

6. Does issuance of a show cause notice to a deceased person vitiate forfeiture proceedings?

7. Are petty bank balances liable to be forfeited under SAFEMA?

Cases Referred (1)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Balesh Kumar, Member, Rajesh Malhotra, Member
Shri Ekramul Ansari Shri Tajamul Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authority New Delhi – Respondent
FPA-146/DLI/2023