9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned in the said notice should not be forfeited under section 7 as the provisions of section 2(2)(c) read with Explanation 2(i) of the SAFEMA are applicable to the appellant. In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant took the stand that the provisions of the SAFEMA are not applicable to her and that the properties are not liable to be forfeited as they are not illegally acquired properties of her husband and there was no nexus with the illegal money generated by her husband. She explained the sources with which she has acquired the properties by herself. After considering the explanation offered by the appellant and the evidence on record, the Competent Authority directed the forfeiture of items (i) and (ii), namely, a flat and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the merits of the case may be gone into. In reply, Shri Baba Prasad, Deputy Director, appearing for the Competent Authority, agreed that the preliminary point may be decided before going into the merits of the case. He contends that by virtue of the emergency being lifted, all the detenus who were detained during the period of emergency were released and that there was no revocation of the detention order and that the third proviso to sub-section (2) of section 2 of the SAFEMA is not attracted. He contends that at any rate, there was no conscious revocation of the detention order by the Government and unless there was such a revocation order made on application of mind the proviso is not applicable. The contention that the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question whether the detention order should be continued, as the detenu was released within the said period of four months and was not under detention thereafter. The third proviso to section 2(2) of the SAFEMA reads as follows (see [1976] 46 Comp Cas (St.) 120) : Such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 12A of the said Act apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of the first review under sub-section (3) of that section, or on the basis of the report of the advisory Board under section 8, read with sub-section (6) of section 12A, of that Act ; or. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the release of the detenu before the expiry of time of four months under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegal and that there was not sufficient material to sustain the same. It is settled law that unless the detention order was questioned by the detenu by himself or by someone on his behalf, the same cannot be allowed to be raised. Admittedly, the order of detention was not challenged before the appropriate forum and cannot be questioned before this Tribunal. In AttorneyGeneral for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas [1995] 83 Comp Cas 804 ; AIR 1994 SC 2179, (it was held) that a person who did not choose to challenge an order of detention during the emergency when he was detained, or challenged it unsuccessfully, cannot be allowed to challenge it when it is sought to be made the basis for applying the SAFEMA to him. Failure to challenge the deten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
