Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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