KALPANA JAYENDRA THAKKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an Order dated 14.10.2008 passed by the Competent Authority, SAFEMA/NDPSA, Mumbai, under Section7 of the Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the SAFEMA") by which the Authority held that the property, being Residential Flat No.B201, Ratnapuri Complex, Opp: Baranpura Petrol Station, Baroda, Gujarat390 001" held by the present petitioner was acquired illegally as per the provisions of SAFEMA and was forfeited under Section 4(2) read with Section 7(3) of the SAFEMA to the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 31.5.2011 passed in Appeal, being FPA 39/Bom/2008 by the Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property, New Delhi, by which the Order dated 14.10.2008 passed by the Competent Authority was confirmed and the Appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the Review Application No.MP17/Bom/2011 (Recall) filed by the petitioner for recalling it's own Order dated 31.5.2011.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case emerges from the record are as under:

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Anshin H. Desai, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Competent Authority as well as the Tribunal, after perusing the reply submitted either by the petitioner or her husband and the documentary evidence produced by the parties, had rightly come to the conclusion that the property was illegally acquired by the wife of the detenue and, therefore, had rightly confiscated the same. Taking me through the Notice dated 23.5.2007, he submitted that after perusing the material on record, the Competent Authority thought it fit to issue Notice under Section6 of the Act and all the reasons recorded by the Competent Authority were also supplied along with the said Notice and, therefore, the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner about the illegality with the notice is baseless and required to be discarded. He further submitted that the husband of the petitioner, who was departing from Mumbai to Doha on the Qatar Airways, was found with foreign currency notes, consisting of US$45,600/, 15,400 Euros, 29,500/ Durham and 500 Saudi Riyals from his shoes. Therefore, one paper carry bag carried by the husband of the petitioner was examined and it was found to contain a black coloured pouch. On examination of the said pouch in the presence of the husband of the petitioner and independent witnesses, assorted foreign currency notes, consisting of US $410/, 1,260 Euros, 1808 Durham and 2,202 Saudi Riyals were recovered. Thus, in all, assorted foreign currency notes consisting of US $47,010/, 16,660/ Euros, 31,308 Dirham and 2,520/ Saudi Riyals, equivalent to Rs.33,06,667.60 were recovered from the shoes and the paper carry bag of the husband of the petitioner, which were seized by the Competent Authority. He further submitted that all the details were provided in the said reasons for issuance of notice Notice under Section6 of the Act to the petitioner as well as her husband Jayendra Chandulal Thakkar @ Jitendra Chimanlal Thakkar. Having found his activities, the Authority thought it fit to detain the husband of the petitioner Jayendra Chandulal Thakkar @ Jitendra Chimanlal Thakkar under the provisions of the COFEPOSA, 1974 and accordingly the detention order was passed.