Summary
The Supreme Court upheld property forfeitures under SAFEMA despite later revocation of COFEPOSA detention orders. Only the specific revocation or judicial-setting-aside contingencies in the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) remove the relevant basis for SAFEMA’s application; none applied here. Discharge from a separate criminal complaint and withdrawal of customs and gold-control penalties did not invalidate the independent forfeiture proceedings.
Issues
- Whether any later revocation of a COFEPOSA detention order made SAFEMA proceedings untenable.
- Whether discharge from the separate criminal complaint and withdrawal of penalties affected forfeiture under SAFEMA.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(2)(b) and its proviso, clauses (i)–(iv), Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976Application to a person against whom COFEPOSA detention was ordered is excluded only in the specified contingencies. The revocation relied upon did not fall within them and no competent court had set aside detention. (¶¶ 16–17, 21–23)
Held
- A COFEPOSA detention order brings the person within Section 2(2)(b), subject to its carefully defined proviso. Revocation for any reason whatsoever is not equivalent to one of the listed exclusions. (¶ 21–22)
- The relevant detention orders did not attract the specified Advisory Board or review-based revocation contingencies and had not been set aside by a competent court. The statutory exclusions were therefore unavailable. (¶ 22.1–22.4)
- In the civil appeal’s facts, the detention challenge had already failed on merits. Revocation pursuant to the Union’s undertaking to initiate prosecution was not the type contemplated by the proviso and did not extinguish SAFEMA’s application. (¶¶ 5–6, 23)
- The criminal complaint and penalty proceedings under customs and gold-control legislation were independent. Discharge and withdrawal of those penalties did not determine the validity of SAFEMA forfeiture. (¶¶ 13, 19–20)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; impugned High Court decisions upholding forfeiture left undisturbed. Pending applications disposed of.