Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – s.2(2)(b) and its proviso – Application – Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – ss.3, 9, 12 – Detention order passed u/s.3 revoked/withdrawn, impugned proceedings under the SAFEMA if can be maintained:
Held: s.2 provides for the application of the provisions of the Act only to the persons specified in sub-section (2) thereof – According to sub-section (2)(b) every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under COFEPOSA, the Act would be applicable subject to four clauses mentioned under the proviso thereto – For the purposes of this case, the relevant provisions are confined to s.2(2)(b) and its proviso – Apart from the four contingencies given in clauses (i) to (iv), every person against whom an order of detention has been passed under COFEPOSA, the provisions of SAFEMA would apply – Admittedly, an order of detention under COFEPOSA was made against the appellants – Order of detention was not revoked on the report of the Advisory Board or before the receipt of the report of Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board – Further, it was an order of detention passed u/s.3, COFEPOSA – s.9 and s.12A, COFEPOSA had no application to the detention order – As such, clause (i) would not be applicable – Clause
(ii) would also not be applicable in as much as neither the detention order was made to which provisions of s.9, COFEPOSA would apply nor had it been revoked before the expiry of the time on the basis of review on the report of the Advisory Board – Furthermore, clause (iii) would also not be applicable as s.12A, COFEPOSA had no application to the detention order – Lastly, the detention order was not set aside by the Court of competent jurisdiction – Therefore, clause (iv) would also have no application – To the contrary, appellant had made a representation against the detention order which was rejected – Said order was challenged before the High Court by way of a writ petition which was also dismissed on merits – The revocation however was made on a statement given on behalf of the Union of India before Supreme Court in order to institute a complaint under the relevant statute – The said revocation is not contemplated u/s.2(2)(b) and its proviso, and, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellant(s) on the said count – Therefore, the impugned judgment confirming the order of forfeiture of properties u/s.7, SAFEMA does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference – Customs Act, 1962 - Gold (Control) Act, 1968. [Paras 1, 22-22.4, 23]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Attorney General for India vs. Amratlal Prajivandas and others (1994)
5 SCC 54: [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 1 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.