- (1.) The petitioner by reason of this application questions an order dated 25th Nov. 1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the properties of the petitioner were confiscated purported to be under the provision of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) Shortly stated the fact of the matter is follows :-The respondent No. 4 was detained by the respondent No. 1 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974. In a proceeding initiated against the said respondent as well as the petitioner, a truck bearing No. WBI-5562 was seized. The said truck, however, was released. Thereafter a confiscation proceeding was initiated in respect of the following properties :- A :Moveable Properties :-1.Truck No. WBI-5562 purchased in 1981 at a cost ofRs. 30,000/-2.50% share in second hand truck bearing No. NLH-1057, Model 1960 purchased in 1984 contributingRs. 20,000/- B :Immoveable Properties :- 1.House property on 5 kattahs of land at Panagarh Bazar, Constructed in the financial year 1975-76 wherein total investment isRs. 40,000/- 2.House property on 1.5 kattahs of land in Panagarh Bazar constructed in 1988. Approximate value isRs. 60,000/- (C) That a notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was also issued to Sardar Kundan Singh, father of the detenue Shri Amarjit Singh, alias Gulu, on 1-8-1990 on the basis of the recorded reasons that the following properties were illegally acquired properties within the meaning of Sections 3(1)(c) of the Act. A. Moveable properties :-1.10' Lathe Machine (one) aboutRs. 15,000/-2.6' Lathe Machine (one) aboutRs. 5,000/-3.Electric Welding Set (one) aboutRs. 2,000/-4.Drill Machine (one) aboutRs. 1,500/-5.Cash in hand as per Capital A/c. for the year 1980-81Rs. 4,439.80/-
(3.) The said properties admittedly are in the name of the petitioner or her husband. The petitioner contends that the said properties were not illegally acquired by the respondent No. 4 in his name. In the said proceedings, as it appears from the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition that notices were served on her but despite opportunities given the petitioner has failed to explain the sources of income from which the aforementioned properties were purchased.;