9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to notice under Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. Analysis: The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging a notice issued under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The petitioner argued that the notice was vague and did not comply with the requirements of Section 6(1) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the properties in question were acquired before the promulgation of the Gold Control Act and therefore not subject to forfeiture under the Act. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Act applied to the petitioner as the spouse of a convict and referred to relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 3(1)(c) and Section 7 regarding forfeiture of property. The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties. The Court noted that the Act applied to the petitioner as the spouse of a person covered by the Act and found that the issuance of the notice was not irregular or illegal. The Court clarified that its role was to determine if the initiation of proceedings was within jurisdiction, not to assess the notice's propriety or the proceedings' merit. The Court emphasized that it was not interfering at this stage as the merit of the petitioner's reply and the competent authority's actions under Section 7 were yet to be considered. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, the Rule discharged, and any interim orders vacated. The Court directed the competent authority to continue considering the matter on merit, providing the petitioner with copies of reasons and relevant documents. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
