THANESAR SINGH SODHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals challenge the impugned orders of the High Court more or less on the same and similar grounds as such have been taken up together and being decided by this common order. In Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011, challenge is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dtd. 26/3/2010 whereby Writ Petition (Civil) No.1212 of 1995 was dismissed confirming the order of forfeiture of properties under Sec. 7 of The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.,[SAFEMA] In Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2014, the challenge is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dtd. 03/17/12/2012 dismissing the Writ Petition No.3878 of 2011 wherein also the order of forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA was upheld.

(2.) Before the High Court, the main ground of challenge in both the cases was that as the detention order passed under Sec. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974,[COFEPOSA] has been subsequently revoked/withdrawn as such SAFEMA proceedings would become non est and untenable. An additional ground taken in Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 was to the effect that even the criminal complaint filed under the Customs Act, 1962,[ The Act 1962] wherein the appellant had been discharged on the ground that there was no evidence, would further render the proceedings under SAFEMA as untenable.

(3.) At the outset, the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant appears to be quite attractive and forceful but when the facts and law of the case are scrutinised, we are of the firm view that argument has to fail resulting into dismissal of the appeals.