9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Competent Authority in 1979. 2. Dismissal of appeal in default due to non-appearance of parties. 3. Application for setting aside order of dismissal and substitution of parties. 4. Proceedings under SAFEMA against deceased person. 5. Properties held liable for forfeiture. 6. Competent Authority's assessment of unexplained assets. 7. Lack of reasoning in the order of forfeiture. 8. Implications of the order on relatives of detenu. 9. Compliance with Supreme Court judgment on forfeiture of properties. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal stemmed from an order passed by the Competent Authority in 1979, which was filed by the affected person, now deceased. The appeal faced delays due to a stay order by the High Court, but was eventually revived and listed for hearing at the Bombay camp. 2. The appeal was dismissed in default as parties did not appear. However, the widow of the deceased person, upon learning of the appeal, applied for setting aside the dismissal order, which was granted. Subsequently, she sought substitution with her two sons, but they did not show interest. 3. The widow of the deceased person, as the appellant, informed the Tribunal about the challenge to a detention order against the deceased's brother and the initiation of proceedings under SAFEMA against the deceased. The proceedings against the brother were dropped, as confirmed by the Competent Authority. 4. The properties held liable for forfeiture included a house property, closing stock of goods, and loans in the deceased person's business. The Competent Authority assessed the unexplained amounts and gave the option of paying a fine to retain the assets. 5. The Competent Authority's assessment of unexplained assets was based on estimations, leading to the order of forfeiture. However, the Tribunal found the order lacking in reasoning and subjectivity, especially in determining which properties were unexplained. 6. The Tribunal highlighted the serious implications of the order, especially concerning relatives of the detenu, as properties of relatives cannot be forfeited unless directly linked to the detenu. The lack of evidence of illegal activities by the deceased person further weakened the forfeiture order. 7. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the order was unsustainable and set aside the impugned order of forfeiture. The order lacked proper reasoning and did not align with the principles outlined by the Supreme Court regarding forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA.
|
