JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Since the points involved in the criminal appeals are identical, they are taken up together for disposal.

2. Union of India questions legality of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that order dated 31.8.1995 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short the SAFEMA ) against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was not sustainable in law. For coming to such conclusion, reference was made to orders dated 19th December, 1994 passed under Section 11(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short the COFEPOSA ) revoking the order of detention and order dated 11.1.1995 passed in earlier writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Reference was made to first proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of SAFEMA for holding that proceedings initiated under the said statute became non est.

3. According to learned counsel for the appellant-Union the view taken by the High Court is clearly untenable. On the facts of the case, first proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (2)