9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's detention under the COFEPOSA Act. 2. Procedural irregularities and breach of natural justice in forfeiture proceedings. 3. Validity of the forfeiture order under the SAFEM Act. 4. Adequacy of evidence and opportunity to contest the forfeiture. 5. Competent Authority's handling of the forfeiture proceedings. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the appellant's detention under the COFEPOSA Act: The appellant was detained under the COFEPOSA Act on August 5, 1975, and released in March 1977. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant falls within the definition of "person" under section 2(2) of the SAFEM Act, as he was a detenu under the COFEPOSA Act. The Tribunal noted that the SAFEM Act does not exempt detentions that were not subject to judicial review during the Emergency. The Tribunal also clarified that it cannot assess the validity of the COFEPOSA detention, distinguishing this case from Union of India v. Haji Mastan, [1984] AIR 1984 SC 681, where the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to review the detention. 2. Procedural irregularities and breach of natural justice in forfeiture proceedings: The appellant argued that there were substantial procedural irregularities and breaches of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in this contention, noting several lapses by the Competent Authority. The appellant was not provided with the Income-tax Inspector's note dated July 27, 1987, which was relied upon by the Competent Authority. The appellant was also not given a final hearing opportunity, and the Competent Authority proceeded ex parte after the appellant had left India temporarily. The Tribunal emphasized that the Competent Authority should have issued notices to the appellant's counsel, as per the remand order, and confronted the appellant with the evidence collected against him. 3. Validity of the forfeiture order under the SAFEM Act: The Tribunal found that the forfeiture proceedings were rightly initiated against the appellant under the SAFEM Act, given his detention under the COFEPOSA Act. However, the Tribunal could not sustain the impugned forfeiture order due to procedural irregularities and breaches of natural justice. 4. Adequacy of evidence and opportunity to contest the forfeiture: The appellant claimed that his investments in the flat were from legitimate sources, including savings from his business, sale of ornaments, and agricultural income. The Competent Authority, however, found the appellant's explanations unconvincing, citing discrepancies in his accounts and the lack of credible evidence for the sale of jewellery. The Tribunal noted that the Competent Authority collected evidence behind the appellant's back and did not provide an opportunity for the appellant to contest this evidence or present final arguments. This was deemed a material irregularity and a violation of natural justice principles. 5. Competent Authority's handling of the forfeiture proceedings: The Tribunal criticized the Competent Authority's handling of the case, noting that the proceedings were conducted without proper notice and hearing. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of confronting the affected person with evidence and allowing them to address arguments at the final hearing stage. The Tribunal concluded that the Competent Authority's actions resulted in a breach of judicial norms and necessitated a remand for a proper hearing. Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case to the Competent Authority for a fresh hearing, directing that all material collected against the appellant be provided to him and that he be allowed to contest the evidence and present final arguments. The Tribunal also rejected the Competent Authority's request for the appellant to deposit rental income from the disputed property, noting that the forfeiture order was vacated and the Competent Authority's right to take possession would only arise upon a formal forfeiture order. The Tribunal urged for an expeditious resolution of the case within four months.
|
