9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factual details are well discussed in such judgment and all issues are properly dealt with and answered by the Appellate Tribunal with reasonings and citations of relevant cases. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition when it is trying to misguide the judicial proceedings. - Special Civil Application No. 13354 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2018 - MR. S. G. SHAH, J. For The Petitioner : Mr Devang Vyas, Advocate And Mr Harsheel D Shukla, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr Shirish Sanjanwala, Sr. Advocate With Mr Dilip Kanojiya, Advocate ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the petitioner being Union of India as competent authority and administrator under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as SAFEMA), whereas respondent though duly served, has remained absent. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Shukla at length and perused the relevant record, so also law applicable to such cases. 3. The brief facts arising from the record so as to drag the issue till this Court is to the effect that; 3.1 Brother of the present respondent was detained under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e side. 5. On perusal of such impugned judgment, it becomes clear that the respondent was working as angadia and, therefore, competent authority has believed that when no books of accounts have been kept, there is no basis to support the contentions of the respondent that he was carrying out business as angadia and, thereby he was having income and capacity to purchase some properties. 6. Whereas, it is contended by the respondent, before the competent authority that there are several decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court that relatives and associates can brought in such proceedings only for the purpose of ensuring that whether illegally acquired properties of the convict or detenue are acquired or kept in their names, and in that case they do not escape from the net of the provisions of SAFEMA and COFEPOSA Act. But the only idea is to reach the property of the detenue and, therefore, the independent properties of the relatives and friends, which are not connected to the detenue, are not sought to be forfeited nor they are within the purview of SAFEMA. 7. The appellate authority has observed that the order of competent authority does not even prima facie show and discl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egularity or perverseness in such discussion and findings, more particularly when properties are directly purchased by the respondent through registered sale deeds. 7.2 The appellate authority has also relied upon several previous decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court viz. ( 1)1994 (5) SCC 54 Attorney General vs. Amrutlal Prajivandas ( 2) 2003 (7) SCC 436 Fatima Mohammed Amin vs. Union of India ( 3) 2007 (2) SCC 510 P. P. Abdulla vs. Competent authority 7.3 Relying upon all such previous decisions, the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the show cause notice issued by the petitioner does not disclose nexus between the detenue and the respondent, so also his properties and, therefore, held that initiation of proceedings against respondent is bad and illegal. 7.4 The appellate authority has thereafter given detailed reasoning for its conclusion as above and concluded that the show cause notice is silent on providing any connection or link with the illegal earnings of the detenue apart from merely stated by the competent authority that reason to believe that the properties described in the Schedule enclosed hereto which are held by yo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground (k) wherein petitioner has practically admitted that there is no substance in the present petition. But the most interesting pleadings is in ground (i) on page 21 of the petition, which reads as under: (i) The judgment of the Hon ble Superme Court passed in the case of Fatima Mohd. Amin, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 436 and in the case of Abdulla, as reported in 2006 (SC-4) GJX- 1080-SC, laying down the condition of mentioning about existence of nexus or link between the properties sought for forfeiture and illegal activities / illegal income of the detenue / convict in Notice issued have been passed on the wrong interpretation of the judgment of the Constitution Bench delivered in the case of Attorney General vs. Amritlal Prajivandas and also without appreciating category of the Act, provisions of the Act and intention of the Legislature, as demonstrated in Grounds (a) to (h). 8.3 Thereby the petitioner has tried to emphasize that the judgment in case of Fatima (supra) is not a good judgment and that the Honourable Supreme Court has not interpreted the judgment of Constitution Bench properly. If it is so, first of all it would be necessary for the petitioner to approach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
