9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the forfeiture order under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). 2. Burden of proof under Section 8 of SAFEMA. 3. Nexus between the illegal activities of the detenu and the property acquired by the petitioner. 4. Interpretation of the term "illegally acquired property" under SAFEMA. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Forfeiture Order: The petitioner challenged the order dated 28.4.80 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of SAFEMA, which was maintained in appeal by the order dated 1.8.94 passed by the Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property, New Delhi. The property in question included a half share in House No. 1135, Chatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Delhi, and various amounts due from different parties. 2. Burden of Proof Under Section 8 of SAFEMA: The Competent Authority formed an opinion that the properties were illegally acquired by the petitioner and that she failed to discharge her burden of proof under Section 8 of SAFEMA. The petitioner argued that the provisions of SAFEMA entail penal consequences and should be strictly construed. The applicability of the burden of proof rule would not be attracted unless there was a foundation laid by material available on record establishing some link between the illegal activity and the acquisition of the property. 3. Nexus Between Illegal Activities and Property Acquisition: The Appellate Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the availability of means for acquiring the property. However, the Tribunal noted that the illegal activities of the detenu, Basant Lal, were only traceable to the year 1967, while the house property was acquired in 1961. The court emphasized that there must be a connecting link or nexus between the holding of the property by the petitioner and the illegal activities of the detenu. 4. Interpretation of "Illegally Acquired Property": The court referred to the definition of "illegally acquired property" under Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of SAFEMA, which includes every acquisition by illegal means not satisfactorily explained. The court also referenced the judgment in Attorney General for India v. Amrit Lal Prajivandas, where the Supreme Court held that the purpose of SAFEMA is to reach the properties of the detenu or convict, not to forfeit the independent properties of relatives and associates. Conclusion: The court held that the rule of evidence enacted by Section 8 of SAFEMA applies only when there is some material available to establish a nexus between the property and the illegal activities of the detenu. Since the house property was acquired by the petitioner in 1961 and the illegal activities of the detenu began in 1967, there was no connecting link. Therefore, the notice of forfeiture and the subsequent orders were quashed to the extent of the petitioner's half share in the house property. Petition allowed.
|
