MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture Under SAFEMA, Affirms Legal Validity Despite COFEPOSA Detention Revocation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, upheld the forfeiture of properties under The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The apex court dismissed appeals in Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2014, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold the forfeiture orders.

 

The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of SAFEMA were applicable despite the revocation of detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). In the judgment delivered on November 9, the bench stated, “The appeals lack merit and are, accordingly dismissed.” This observation was made after a thorough analysis of the legal and factual aspects of the case.

The appeals challenged the High Court's orders that confirmed the forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA. The main ground of challenge was the subsequent revocation of the COFEPOSA detention orders, which the appellants argued made the SAFEMA proceedings non-est and untenable. The Supreme Court, however, found this argument lacking in merit.

Justice Vikram Nath, in the judgment, noted, “The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.” This statement came after considering the legal framework of SAFEMA and COFEPOSA, particularly focusing on the applicability of SAFEMA in cases where COFEPOSA detention orders are revoked.

The Court's ruling also addressed the irrelevance of the dismissal of a criminal complaint under the Customs Act, 1962, and the withdrawal of a penalty in determining the applicability of SAFEMA. These were independent proceedings and did not impact the SAFEMA proceedings.

This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the interplay between COFEPOSA and SAFEMA, particularly in cases of property forfeiture. The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the legal framework designed to combat smuggling and foreign exchange manipulation, marking a significant moment in the enforcement of economic laws in India.

Date of Decision: November 09, 2023

THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.             

 

Latest Legal News