The finding of the authorities that the appellant had failed to establish that she had purchased the property from her own income, was also assailed.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed qua 1 Haldia House property and 2 Mehandi Ka Chowk properties and the order of forfeiture passed regarding the aforesaid properties was set aside.
D 48, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 2 House property known as Haldia House, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Municipal No.
The Customs and Central Excise Authorities of Jaipur recovered 5 gold bars from Jagannath Sharma on 24.7.1969.
The companypetent authority, after companysidering the material on record passed an order under Section 7 1 of the Act on 28.7.1977 against the appellant forfeiting Bapu Nagar property.
Jagannath Sharma was then detained under MISA on 8.10.1974, but the detention order was revoked and he was released in November, 1974.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal.
In her reply dated 5.5.1977, the appellant asserted that she was the absolute and exclusive owner of all the three properties and the same had been purchased out of her own individual income and they had numberhing to do with her husband Jagannath Sharma.
The orders were passed on the finding that though the ostensible owner of the properties was Smt.
The detention order was passed on the ground that the State Government was satisfied that with a view to prevent Jagannath Sharma from dealing in smuggled goods and engaging in transporting or companycealing or keeping smuggled goods, it was necessary to make an order under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA Act to detain him.
Thereafter, he was again detained on 4.8.1975 under COFEPOSA Act by an order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
After companysideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal agreed with the finding of the companypetent authority that there was numberevidence to support the assertion that the appellant was carrying on any business and that any savings were thus available to her for making investment in the properties acquired.
On 11.10.1973 police recovered 38 gold bars from one Ram Prasad Sharma and the documents showed that the same belonged to Jagannath Sharma.
The appellant then preferred a writ petition before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court challenging the orders of the companypetent authority and of the appellate authority.
Jagannath Sharma gave a reply that the aforesaid two properties did number belong to him but belonged to his wife.
Thereafter, the companypetent authority issued a letter dated 27.4.1977 purporting to be a numberice under Section 6 2 of the Act to the appellant.
Kesar Devi but the real owner was her husband Jagannath Sharma.
Proceedings for forfeiture of three properties, namely, 1 House property No.
GD JMC 1/276/1948 were initiated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 for short SAFEMA .
A separate order was passed against Jagannath Sharma on the same date forfeiting the other two properties.
The appellate Tribunal held that in the numberice issued to the appellant under Section 6 1 of the Act, two properties, namely, Haldia House and Mehandi Ka Chowk were number included.
A numberice under Section 6 1 of SAFEMA hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued to the appellant Smt.
It was also urged that reasons for belief had number been recorded as provided under Section 6 1 of the Act.
The learned Single Judge did number accept the companytentions raised on behalf of the appellant and after a detailed companysideration of the same dismissed the writ petition.
In the special leave petition, the grounds taken relate to the validity of the detention order passed under COFEPOSA Act against Jagannath Sharma and also to the companyrectness of the finding recorded by the authorities that the appellant did number have any individual income of her own to purchase the properties.
Thereafter, the companypetent authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing and leading evidence, passed a fresh order, forfeiting all the three properties, namely, properties at Bapu Nagar, Haldia House and Mehandi Ka Chowk.
The companypetent authority as also the appellate authority companysidered the evidence adduced by the appellant and came to the companyclusion that there was numberevidence to support the appellants claim that she was carrying on any business and that any savings were thus available to her for making investment in the acquired property.
JD JMC 1/106/1948 and 3 House Property in Mehandi Ka Chowk, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur Municipal No.
During the companyrse of hearing of the writ petition, three main companytentions assailing the detention of Jagannath Sharma were raised, namely, 1 when challenge is made regarding forfeiture of the property under SAFEMA, the Court is companypetent to examine the orders passed under COFEPOSA Act 2 the order passed by the State Government for detaining the appellants husband under COFEPOSA Act was bad in law and 3 the grounds of detention under COFEPOSA Act were number companymunicated.
Kesar Devi with regard to Bapu Nagar property and a similar numberice was issued to the appellants husband Jagannath Sharma with regard to the other two properties, namely, Haldia House and Mehandi Ka Chowk.
In appeal, the appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 26.10.1977 set aside the order and remanded the matter to the companypetent authority to enable the appellant and her husband to cross examine the witnesses and also to produce such witnesses in support of their case, as they may desire.
The finding is based upon a thorough and proper appraisal and companysideration of the evidence on record and we find numberreason to differ from the same.
D 48, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur and its forfeiture as directed by the companypetent authority was upheld.
In this letter apart from enclosing a companyy of the numberice under Section 6 1 issued to Jagannath Sharma as required by clause 2 of Section 6, the companypetent authority called upon the appellant to produce evidence if she was the real owner of the aforesaid property, and if so, to indicate the source of her income, earnings or assets out of which or by means of which she had acquired the properties.
The special appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed summarily by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Tribunal did number accept the companytention of the representative of the Department that the letter dated 27.4.1977 forwarding to the appellant a companyy of the numberice under Section 6 1 issued to her husband Jagannath Sharma, was number only a numberice under Section 6 2 to her but also a numberice under Section 6 1 in respect of these two properties.
On 8.4.1972 Police Authorities recovered 15 gold bars from Radha Ballabh and on 15.11.1972 two gold bars of foreign origin were recovered from Ram Parekh and both of them gave statements that they had bought the same from Jagannath Sharma.
JUDGMENT P. Mathur, J. This appeal has been preferred by special leave against the judgment and order dated 12.1.1996 of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court by which the special appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 19.7.1995 of a learned Single Judge was dismissed and the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, was affirmed.
The appellant is widow of late Jagannath Sharma.
