- (1.) The matter has been heard at length. In order dated 15th July, 2015 a point of challenge raised by the petitioner giving rise to the question regarding what was the law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas & Ors., 1994 AIR(SC) 2179, as subsequently interpreted by a Division Bench of the said Court in the case of Kesar Devi (Smt) v. Union of India & Ors., 2003 AIR(SC) 4195 was recorded as is reproduced below : "The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th December, 2009 made by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property constituted under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 whereby the order of forfeiture of the petitioner's properties made by the competent Authority was upheld. The petitioner's only ground of challenge is that on the materials on record the Tribunal had not found it to be established that the properties ordered to be forfeited were the properties held by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu as his associate. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, 1994 AIR(SC) 2179, in particular paragraph 43 thereof to submit that the said Court had interpreted the said Act, inter alia, as follows : ".......The idea is not to forfeit the independent properties of such relatives or associates which they may have acquired illegally but only to reach the properties of the convict/detenu or properties traceable to him, wherever they are, ignoring all the transactions with respect to those properties."
(2.) Mr. Saraf, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue has relied on a later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kesar Devi (Smt) v. Union of India & Ors., 2003 AIR(SC) 4195 in particular to paragraphs 11 to 13 therein. In those paragraphs the Supreme Court had considered the judgment in Amratlal Prajivandas (AIR 1994 SC 2179) and held as follows: "We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that under the scheme of the Act, there is no requirement on the part of the competent authority to mention or establish any nexus or link between the money of the convict or detenu and the property sought to be forfeited. In fact, if such a condition is imposed, the very purpose of enacting SAFEMA would be frustrated, as in many cases it would be almost impossible to show that the property was purchased or acquired from the money provided by the convict or detenu." This matter is adjourned to be listed on next Wednesday i.e. 22nd July, 2015 for the petitioner to make submission regarding the law applicable to the challenge made in the writ petition."
(3.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted with reference to the decision in Kesar Devi (AIR 2003 SC 4195 : 2003 Cri LJ 3750) that the facts in that case were that the competent Authority had made orders on the findings that though ostensible owner of the properties was Smt. Kesar Devi but the real owner was her husband Jagannath Sharma, the detenu. On the facts the Supreme Court in that judgment had held as follows : "12. .................In those cases where the relationship is a very remote one, the competent authority may have to indicate some link or nexus while recording reasons for belief that the property is an illegally acquired property. But cases where relationship is close and direct like spouse, son or daughter or parents stand on an altogether different footing. Here no link or nexus has to be indicated in the reasons for belief between the convict or detenu and the property, as such an inference can easily be drawn.";