SHOBHA SURESH JUMANI Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FORFEITED PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question requiring consideration in this appeal is - Whether wife whose husband's property is ordered to be forfeited under the Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the SAFEMA") is entitled to file an appeal as "person aggrieved" under Section 12(4) of the Act

(2.) Before dealing with the contentions, facts in nutshell are that the Government of India issued detention order dated 16-11-1995 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEOSA") against one Suresh Manoharlal Jumani, resident of Khar (West), Mumbai. It appears that the order of detention was not implemented as he was absconding. However, his detention order is neither revoked nor quashed by any Court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA, competent authority issued notice dated 31-12-1996 to Suresh Manoharlal Jumani and his wife Smt. Shobha Suresh Jumani to show cause why the properties mentioned therein should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under the Act. The competent authority divided the properties in two parts-(1) standing in the name of detenue i.e. properties mentioned as Items Nos.1 to 6; and (2) properties mentioned as Items Nos. 7 and 8, which were standing in the name of appellant. Notice to the appellant was issued as two properties were standing in her name and as she was considered to be covered by the provisions of Section 2(2)(c) of the SAFEMA. After giving opportunity of hearing and of producing relevant material evidence, competent authority by order dated 23-8-1999 held that the properties mentioned therein stood forfeited to the Central Government under Section 7 of the SAFEMA free from all encumbrances.

(3.) That order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal for the forfeited property at New Delhi by filing appeal under Section 12. By order dated 5-1-2000, with regard to the forfeited property, i.e. Item Nos. 1 to 6 which were in the name of detenue. the Tribunal directed that as the detenue has not filed the appeal, the appeal was not maintainable and the counsel should confine his arguments only in respect of Items Nos. 7 and 8. The learned counsel sought time for making his submission and the matter was adjourned to 4-2-2000. On 4-2-2000 the matter was heard qua Items Nos. 7 and 8 which were standing in the name of the appellant and the appeal was dismissed on 8-2-2000. Thereafter, appellant preferred Miscellaneous Petition No. 17/Bom of 2000 in FPA No. 40/BOM/99 for reviewing the order on the ground that the appellant was having interest in Items Nos.1 to 6 as she had vested right of maintenance from her husband and his properties, and, therefore, she was 'person aggrieved'. That contention was negatived by the Tribunal by order dated 22-2-2000. The High Court of Bombay by order dated 6-2-2000 dismissed Crl. Writ Petition No. 653 of 2000 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.