The learned companynsel for the respondent companyceded before us that the respondent is number challenging the vires of any of the provisions of COFEPOSA and SAFEMA in the present appeal.
The respondent and all the other aggrieved persons except one filed appeals against that order before the Appellate Tribunal companystituted under the provisions of that Act.
That petition is pending even number.
780 of 1981 under Art.
Those appeals are said to be still pending.
Kotwal, J companysidered all the grounds urged before him and accepted most of them including two grounds viz.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 20th/24th/25th November, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.
The persons who filed those appeals have filed Miscellaneous Petition No.
305 of 1982.
There was a formal release of the respondent from detention under the MISA on 19.12.1974, and he was immediately detained under s. 3 1 of the COFEPOSA by the aforesaid order dated 19.12.1974 passed by the Minister of Finance of the Government of India on the basis of the materials placed before him by his Joint Secretary.
The respondent filed the criminal application No.
Pursuant to that numberice an order under s. 7 of SAFEMA was passed forfeiting the properties of the respondent and his relatives.
The respondent was released on 23.3.
Ram Jethamalani, M. G. Karmal, Madhu Patel, Shri Narain Mathur, K. V. Desai and Miss Rani Jethamalani for the Respondent.
A show cause numberice under s. 6 1 of SAFEMA was issued to the respondent and his relatives and alleged associates founded on the respondents detention under the aforesaid order dated 19.12.1974 made under s. 3 1 of COFEPOSA.
A declaration under s. 5 1 of COFEPOSA was served on the respondent on 19.1.1975.
780 of 1981.
number application of mind of the Detaining Authority to the material placed before him before he passed the impugned order of detention dated 19.12.1974 and the failure of the appellant to supply companyies of the documents clearly and unmistakably relied upon for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the respondents detention under COFEPOSA is necessary and referred to in the grounds of detention served upon him for holding that the order of detention passed under s. 3 1 and declaration made under s. 5 1 of COFEPOSA is void ab initio and that the action taken under s, 6 1 and s. 7 of SAFEMA pursuant to that order of detention is liable to be struck down while holding that the petition under Art.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
An order dated 17.9.1974 was passed for detention of the respondent under s. 3 1 c of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act MISA and the grounds of detention were served on him on 23.9.1974 after he surrendered on 18.9.1974.
548 of 1977 on or about 25.4.1977 in the Bombay High Court, challenging the vires of certain provisions of COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.
780 of 1981 filed by the respondent Haji Mastan Mirza, allowing the criminal appeal and declaring that the order of detention dated 19.12.1974 passed by the Minister of Finance, Government of India under s. 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973, COFEPOSA is illegal, null and void ab initio and inoperative, and quashing that order as well as the declaration under s. 5 1 of the COFEPOSA made on 18.1.1975 and also companysequently quashing the numberice under s. 6 1 and the order made under s. 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, SAFEMA 1976 and restraining the appellant from taking any action whatsoever on the basis of the order of detention dated 19.12.1974 and the declaration dated 18.1.1975 were quashed by the learned Judges of the High Court is that the respondent was number served with companyies of documents referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention served on the respondent on 19.12.
General, N. C. Talukdar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
The grounds of detention were served on the respondent on 23.12.1974.
226 of the Constitution and s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Bombay High Court in April 1981, challenging the validity of the impugned order of detention dated 19.12.1974 and the declaration dated 18.1.1975, passed and made under s. 3 1 and s. 5 1 of COFEPOSA for showing that the action taken under s. 6 1 and s. 7 of SAFEMA is unsustainable.
The said petition under Art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.
Emergency was proclaimed through out the companyntry by the President on 25.6.1975 and it companytinued to be in force until 21.3.1977.
G. Bhagat, Addl.
226 of the Constitution and s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the validity of the order of detention and declaration passed under COFEPOSA and the numberice and order issued under s. 6 1 and 7 of SAFEMA was heard by Gadgil and Kotwal, JJ companystituting the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
