( 1 ). The son of the appellant herein, namely, Syed Murtuza Hussain babamiya was convicted on 30-9-1968 in a customs case for smuggling of gold and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 1000. 00 or in default thereof three months rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) ON 18-2-1975 and 4-3-1976, two sons of the appellant, namely, Syed murtuza Hussain Babamiya and Syed Arif Babamiya were detained under the detention orders issued by the authorities under the provisions of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act" ). A show-cause notice was issued on 29-10-1976, inter alia, as to why forfeiture of one-tenth property of the appellant shall not be effected. On 29-4-1980, the respondent authorities recorded additional reasons for forfeiture of the said property by including the ground as such that the appellant being a related person, comes within the scope of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short "safema") and the property held by her, namely, one-tenth share in Syed Villa as well as the property in Rose Villa was liable to be confiscated.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the additional reasons recorded, another show-cause notice was issued on 5-5-1980 pertaining to the property known as Rose villa, by which the property was sought to be confiscated.

( 4 ) ON 12-8-1980, by another order the SAFEMA Authorities directed forfeiture of the property known as Rose Villa situated at Panchgani in the state of Maharashtra, on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish the source of income in respect of the said property.

( 5 ) THE appellant preferred two appeals against both the orders and the appellate authority allowed the appeals and set aside the order under challenge on the ground that the detention order passed against her son had been set aside by the High Court. However, the appellate authority remanded the matter to the competent authority for further investigation in the matter. On 18-12-1981 the competent authority recorded fresh reasons under Section 6 of SAFEMA. On 24-10-1986 an order was again passed directing forfeiture of the Rose Villa property. Aggrieved thereby the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the competent authority. The said order was challenged by means of a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has approached this Court by way of special leave petitions.

( 6 ) SHRI H. N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that these cases stand concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas wherein it was held as thus:

"it would thus be clear that the connecting link or the nexus, as it may be called, is the holding of property or assets of the convict/detenu or traceable to such detenu/convict. Section 4 is equally relevant in this context. It declares that as from the commencement of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to whom this Act applies to hold any illegally acquired property either by himself or through any other person on his behalf. All such property is liable to be forfeited. The language of this section is indicative of the ambit of the Act. Clauses (c) and (d) in section 2 (2) and the Explanations (2) and (3) occurring therein shall have to be construed and understood in the light of the overall scheme and purpose of the enactment. The idea is to forfeit the illegally acquired properties of the convict/detenu irrespective of the fact that such properties are held by or kept in the name of or screened in the name of any relative or associate as defined in the said two Explanations. The idea is not to forfeit the independent properties of such relatives or asso