D. P. Wadhwa, J. - (1.) These are three appeals. Two appeals (Criminal Appeals Nos. 2/94 and 574/94) are directed against the judgment, dated April 29, 1993 of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court and have been filed respectively by the Competent Authority and the State of Gujarat. By this impugned judgment the High Court allowed two writ petitions filed by the respondents declaring that the order of detention passed against the first respondent Amritlal Chandmal Jain ("Amritlal") under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') was illegal and it quashed the proceeding initiated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short 'SAFEMA') against the respondents. The third appeal (Civil Appeal 1487/94) has been filed by the Competent Authority and is directed against the judgment, dated June 23, 1993 of another Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Competent Authority in which the Competent Authority had sought directions restraining Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I from releasing seized silver to M/s. Agra Bullion Company and Amritlal. In this appeal Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I is also respondent. The Competent Authority has been constituted under the SAFEMA and it means an officer of the Central Government to perform the functions under SAFEMA.
(2.) By order dated July 21, 1982, passed under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA by the State of Gujarat Amritlal was detained. He challenged his detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court (WP 1151/82). State of Gujarat, however, revoked the order of detention by order dated October 18, 1982 but by separate order on the same grounds and passed on the same day Amritlal was again detained. This led to filing of second writ of habeas corpus by Amritlal in this Court (WP 1342/82). First writ petition was disposed of on October 20, 1982 by the following order:- "Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned order of detention in each of these cases has since been revoked and the petitioners were thereafter released. The learned Counsel further states that sometime after their release on the day of release itself, each of the petitioners, has been served with a fresh order of detention and taken into custody. He proposes to file fresh petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Such petitions, if and when filed, may be listed for preliminary hearing. Liberty to mention. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed as infructuous."
(3.) During the pendency of the second writ petition the detenu Amritlal was ordered to be released on parole by order dated November 8, 1982. In the meanwhile the period of detention of Amritlal was reduced by the detaining authority up to August 16, 1983 when he was released from detention. Second writ petition was disposed of on July 10, 1985 by the following order:- "In so far as these cases are concerned, the period during which the petitioners were on parole shall be taken into account while calculating the total period of detention. The order of detention was passed more than two and half years ago. The writ petitions will stand disposed of in terms of this order." ;