The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently dismissed two appeals challenging orders of forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The court noted that provisions of SAFEMA would apply to every person against whom an order of detention has been passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 19742 (COFEPOSA) unless it comes under exception given in proviso to section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case at hand involves two appeals challenging the orders of forfeiture of properties under the SAFEMA. The appellants, Thanesar Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. Lrs. and Sujata S. Shetty, contested the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, respectively, on similar grounds, prompting the Supreme Court of India to address these appeals collectively.
The primary contention raised by the appellants before the High Courts was grounded in the revocation of a detention order issued under the COFEPOSA. Both appellants argued that, with the withdrawal of the detention order, proceedings under SAFEMA became untenable. Thanesar Singh Sodhi's additional contention in Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 centred on the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed under the Customs Act, 1962.
The central theme of their contention rested on the premise that the revocation of the COFEPOSA detention order automatically rendered the SAFEMA proceedings inapplicable. Thanesar Singh Sodhi's counsel further argued that the dismissal of the criminal complaint under the Customs Act, 1962, reinforced the untenability of the SAFEMA proceedings in his case.
Observations by the Court:
d. The Supreme Court, however, after a meticulous examination of the statutory framework, specifically section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA, rejected these contentions.
The Court emphasized the proviso to section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA, which outlines specific conditions under which SAFEMA would not be applicable following the revocation of a COFEPOSA detention order. Crucially, the Court found that none of the specified conditions in the proviso were met in the appellants' cases. The revocation of the COFEPOSA detention order did not align with any of the contingencies outlined in the statute. Therefore, the Court concluded that SAFEMA remained applicable, and the revocation did not invalidate the forfeiture proceedings.
The Supreme Court underscored the independent nature of issues related to the dismissal of a criminal complaint under the Customs Act, 1962, highlighting that these matters were separate from the SAFEMA proceedings. In light of these considerations, the Court determined that the appellants' appeals lacked merit, upholding the legality of the forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA. The impugned orders of the High Courts were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed on November 9, 2023.
The decision of the Court:
In summary, the Supreme Court's decision, delivered on November 9, 2023, reaffirms the applicability of SAFEMA in cases where a COFEPOSA detention order has been passed, rejecting the appellants' claims and upholding the legality of the forfeiture proceedings.
Case Name: Thanesar Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. Lrs V. Union Of India And Ors, Sujata S. Shetty V. Union Of India And Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5500 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 730 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 865 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Ankur, Adv. Mr. Chayan Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. Karan Bindra, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bipul Kedia, Adv. Ms. Mahesh Sharma, Adv. Dr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Sethi, Adv. Ms. Gyanika Kochar, Adv. Mr. Neville Majra, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv. Mr. S.a. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
