LAWS(BOM)-1999-8-133

HARSHAD P MEHTA Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SAFEMA

Decided On August 10, 1999
Harshad P Mehta Appellant
V/S
Competent Authority Safema Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No.1 and his family members have approached the Court challenging the orders of Competent Authority as well as Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ("SAFEMA" for short ). It is an admitted position that petitioner No.1 along with nine other persons were served with the detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("COFEPOSA" for short). It is also an admitted position that after ten persons were detained including Petitioner No.1, the order of detention in respect of Petitioner No.1 came to be revoked.

(2.) OUT of the remaining nine, the order of detention of two detenues were also revoked as per the Advisory Board. Thereafter, in respect of two more, it was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and one was quashed by Delhi High Court. This would leave three detenues. Two of them are absconding and one has already suffered the detention.

(3.) TAKING note of the fact that the detention order has been revoked in respect of petitioner No.1, the authorities of SAFEMA had issued a show cause notice under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA Act calling upon Petitioner No.1 and his relatives, the family members, to show as to why the property should not be forfeited. As per the said notice, Petitioners were supposed to show the source of income and earnings in relation to the assets set out in the notice within 35 days and the service thereof. Notice is dated 29th August, 1997. A part of it is produced at page 47, Exhibit-F and the entire history is produced at page 93. If one refers to the original, a slight difference is to be found at the end of notice with reference to the statement of Petitioner No.1 in paragraph 5 of his letter dated 22nd July, 1997 at page 40. However, this is more than made up by other material on record which corroborates that right from the beginning, the say of Petitioner No.1 about the major source of his earning was that he earned the commission from Hawala activities.