UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHANLAL LIKUMAL PUNJABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the points involved in the criminal appeals are identical, they are taken up together for disposal.

(2.) Union of India questions legality of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that order dated 31-8-1995 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short the SAFEMA) against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was not sustainable in law. For coming to such conclusion, reference was made to orders dated 19th December, 1994 passed under Section 11(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short the COFEPOSA) revoking the order of detention and order dated 11-1-1995 passed in earlier writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Reference was made to first proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of SAFEMA for holding that proceedings initiated under the said statute became non est.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the appellant-Union the view taken by the High Court is clearly untenable. On the facts of the case, first proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (2) had no application to the facts of the case. The revocation of the order of detention was in exercise of power conferred under Section 11(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA and not under Section 8 as stipulated in the said provision. It is further submitted that the proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA for forfeiture of property on 12-10-1994. The orders of detention under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA were passed on 24-5-1994. The orders of detention were challenged by the respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition Nos. 1071 and 1072 of 1994. After the show-cause notice was issued in exercise of the power under Section 11(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA, the Central Government revoked the orders of detention on 19-12-1994 as indicated above. In view of the revocation of the orders of detention, the writ petitions were disposed of on 11-1-1995. By order dated 31-8-95, properties mentioned in the show-cause notice were directed to be forfeited under Section 7 of SAFEMA. The order directing forfeiture was challenged on merits before the Tribunal constituted under the SAFEMA. Thereafter writ petitions were filed on 23-11-1995 challenging the orders of detention and also challenging the order of forfeiture. The latter additional challenge was by way of amendment. By the impugned judgment dated 13-6-1996 the High Court passed the impugned order in each case.