M ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner purchased an item of property, as per Ext. P2, on 14-12-1994 from one Sri. K. Ummer against whom an order was issued on 5-12-1994 by the competent-authority under Section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for short.

(2.) The uncontroverted plea of the respondents through the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that Sri. K. Ummer had carried on certain business transactions along with Sri. L. K. Mohideen alias Haji Mohideen who was detained under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act and as such, Sri. K. Ummer was an "Associate" of that detenu, answering the description of a 'person' under Section 2(2)(d) of the Act and still further, that notice dated 22-8-1980 under Section 6(1) of the Act proposing forfeiture of certain movable and immovable properties was issued to Sri. K. Ummer.

(3.) The contentions of the petitioner are that the statutory invalidation of transfers as per Section 11 of the Act does not affect Ext. P2 since it is a bona fide purchase by the petitioner without notice of proceedings against Sri. K. Ummer and that by virtue of Section 9, the competent-authority was authorized to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture and therefore Ext. P2 transaction is to be protected from proceedings under the Act. At the most, there could be only fine in lieu of forfeiture, it is contended.