9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of notices issued under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. Analysis: The judgment delivered by P.S. Mishra, J., addressed the validity of notices issued under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The petitioners challenged the notices questioning the legality of the notices issued under the Act. The Act applies to individuals convicted under specific laws or detained under certain acts. It also includes relatives and associates of convicted individuals within its scope. The notices required the recipients to provide information on the sources of income used to acquire the properties in question and show cause why the properties should not be declared illegally acquired and forfeited to the Central Government. The judgment emphasized the importance of the competent authority recording the reasons for believing that the properties in question were illegally acquired. It clarified that the notice under Section 6 does not need to contain precise information about the reasons for such belief, as long as the competent authority has recorded it in writing. The judgment highlighted that if there is no such record, the notice lacks jurisdiction. However, if the record exists, the notice cannot be challenged solely on the ground of not explicitly mentioning the reasons for the belief in the notice itself. Regarding the contentions raised by the petitioners, the judgment rejected the argument that the notice should provide detailed information about the reasons for the belief. It stated that the notice was not vague and provided sufficient indication of the nature of the competent authority's satisfaction. The judgment emphasized that any challenge to the satisfaction of the competent authority should be based on the reasons recorded in writing by the authority. Additionally, the judgment noted the delay in approaching the court in one case where the notice was issued in 1979, highlighting the importance of timely legal action. It encouraged petitioners to follow due legal processes and stated that the court would remain accessible for remedies if needed. Ultimately, the petitions were dismissed, and the Writ Petitions were accordingly rejected, leading to the dismissal of specific cases mentioned in the judgment.
|
