MADHABI RANI KAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed an order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the competent authority as well as the appellate authority had erred in not appreciating that, the provisions of the Act of 1976 are not attracted in view of the fact that, the petitioner was never convicted in respect of any offence enumerated under the Act of 1976. He has referred to Sec. 2(2)(b) of the Act of 1976 and has submitted that, the petitioner has not been convicted under any of the Act enumerated therein. Therefore, the competent authority could not have assumed jurisdiction over the matter. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that, the second proviso to Sec. 2(2)(b) of the Act of 1976 has happened so as to denude the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the Act of 1976. He refers to the averments made in the writ petition as also the averments in the affidavit-in-opposition in support of such contention.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that, Sec. 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 requires a detention and not conviction as the words used in the Sec. would demonstrate.