MOHAMMAD HANIFA Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought quashing of the order dated April 25, 1979, in No. FPA 49 of 1978-79 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property and also the order dated June 30, 1976, in No. OCA/(MDS)/287 of 1976 passed by the competent authority for the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the competent authority, the petitioner was a detenu and has suffered an order of detention, therefore, he is covered by the provisions of section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "SAFEMA"), that he had acquired agricultural land in June, 1974, for a total consideration of Rs. 12,861, that he is not able to establish that the entire consideration was paid from lawful sources and that he has failed to satisfy that consideration to the extent of Rs. 7,861 was from lawful sources. The competent authority has accepted the case of the petitioner to the extent that out of Rs. 12,861, a sum of Rs. 5,040 came from the sale proceeds of the jewellery of his wife. ACCORDINGly, the competent authority has passed an order under section 7 of the SAFEMA forfeiting the property on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove the lawful source for more than one-half of the value of the immovable property. The Appellate Tribunal has also agreed with the findings of the competent authority.

(3.) IT may be observed from the statements recorded so far that there is general corroboration of the claims made by Hanifa before the competent authority. From the demeanour of the deponents, I got the impression that what they were saying was the truth."