Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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