BAIJ NATH AGARWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the property of relative of a detenu under the provisions of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties ) Act, 1976 ( in short, 'the said Act' ) can be confiscated without establishing a nexus with the purported illegal acquired properties and the earnings out of the activities which are prohibited by law.

(2.) The fact of the matter is undisputed. Mr. Sawarmal Agarwalla, brother of the writ petitioner herein was detained under the said Act for a period of about 20 months during 1995-97. The writ petitioner herein was treated as an "affected person" under Section 2(2)(c) of the said Act. Notice under Section 6(1) of the said Act was issued on 15.10.1980 thereby calling upon the writ petitioner herein as to why the properties specified therein should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government. The new incumbents of the Offices of the competent authority also issued notices for forfeiture of the said properties on 08.11.1985 and 12.10.1987. Yet again, another notice was issued with a view to extend the proceedings under the said Act purported to be as regard newly discovered properties of the petitioner consequent upon the petitioner's filing his returns of income and wealth under the Amnesty Scheme of the Central Government. Upon completion of investigation and trial, the properties of the writ petitioner were forfeited by the competent authority by an order dated 29.08.1989. Whereagainst an appeal was preferred. The said appeal vide order dated 17.01.1992 was allowed only in relation to the life insurance policy, but was rejected in relation to the other forfeited properties. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia praying for the following reliefs :-

(3.) Shri Harjinder Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset very fairly stated that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Attorney General of India, etc. v. Amratlal Prajivandas & Ors., etc.1, the writ petition has to be kept confined only to prayer (f) aforementioned. The learned counsel would contend that keeping in view the purport and object of the said Act, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents herein to establish a nexus between the purported illegal acquired properties of the petitioner and the earnings out of the activities of the detenue, which are prohibited by law.