In Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011, challenge is to an order Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 26.03.2010 whereby Writ Petition (Civil) No.1212 of 1995 was dismissed confirming the order of forfeiture of properties under section 7 of The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. For brevity of sake, we are reproducing the facts of Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 and will briefly refer Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011.
The said petition was clubbed with group of petitions and were finally dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27.10.1978 passed by this Court, on the undertaking given on behalf of the Union of India that the detention order would be withdrawn and a complaint would be filed for prosecuting the detenues which included the appellant and others also. Reply was given to the aforesaid show cause notice by the appellant on 21.03.1981. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide order dated Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide order dated 30.10.1981 discharged the appellant and closed the proceedings of the criminal complaint. Thereafter, the appellant therein, filed a second petition being W.P.No.3878 of 2011 before the High Court of Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 Bombay again challenging the same forfeiture order dated 25.06.2001 on the ground that the order of detention under COFEPOSA had been subsequently revoked by order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Director (COFEPOSA) as such the order of forfeiture under SAFEMA which was challenged afresh has been untenable once the order of detention had been revoked.
Learned counsel for the appellant had placed strong reliance on Section 2(2) (b) of the SAFEMA to support his submissions that once the detention order under COFEPOSA had been revoked, the proceedings under SAFEMA could not be maintained.
It is only where the revocation is for the reasons and situations given under four clauses of the proviso that SAFEMA would not be applicable to such a person against whom the detention order had been passed under COFEPOSA. Banerji also submitted that the proceedings under the Act 1962 and the Act 1968 and the Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 complaint and the withdrawal of penalty under said provisions also would not be of any help to the appellant in as much as the appellant would be liable to be proceeded with proceedings under SAFEMA as there was an order of detention under COFEPOSA against which representation was rejected and writ petition before the High Court had been dismissed on merits.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/challenge-to-state-governments-directive-for-cadre-merger/
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. Application.-
(2) The persons referred to in sub-section (1) are the following, namely:-
(b) every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974)
Provided that- (i) such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 9 or section 12A of the said Act do not apply, has not been revoked on the report of the Advisory Board under section 8 of the said Act or before the Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011. Advisory Board under section 8 of the said Act or before the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board; (ii) such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 9 of the said Act apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of, the review under sub-section (3) of section 9, or on the report of the Advisory Board under section 8, read with sub-section (2) of section 9, of the said Act; or (iii) such order of detention, being an order to which the provision of section 12A Clause (ii) would also not be applicable in as much as neither the detention order was made to which provisions of Section 9 of 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. The said revocation is not contemplated under Section 2(2)(b) and its proviso, and, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellant(s) on the said count. Therefore, in our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The appeals lack merit and are, accordingly dismissed.
The said revocation is not contemplated under Section 2(2)(b) and its proviso, and, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellant(s) on the said count.
Therefore, in our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The appeals lack merit and are, accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: THANESAR SINGH SODHHI (D) THR. LRS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number: C.A. No.-005500-005500 / 2011
