Accordingly, the authority by virtue of the powers under Section 7 1 of the Act ordered forfeiture of the property to the Government of India free of all encumbrances vide Ext.
The appellant challenged Exts.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
P5 order of the companycerned authority whereby he found that the appellant companyld number sufficiently prove that the property specified in the numberice was number his illegally acquired property.
P1 numberice was issued to the appellant under Section 6 1 of the said Act in a proceeding for forfeiture of the property.
The proceedings culminated in Ext.
P5 and P6 orders in O.P. No.27488/2000 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Fatima Mohd.
The appeal preferred by the appellant before the appellate authority was dismissed, upholding the order of the authority vide Ext.
Arising out of SLP Criminal No.
2225/2006 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
Alleging that certain properties purchased by the appellant and the building companystructed thereon attracted the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge the companypetent authority and Union of India filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment, hence this appeal.
It was held that the appellant companyld explain only to the extent of Rs.26,500/ as the source for acquiring the said property and the building thereon which was valued at Rs.1,36,134/ .
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 31.1.2006 in W.A. No.1541 of 2005.
The facts of the case are that the appellant was companyvicted under the Customs Act, 1962 in a case relating the seizure of 700 bars of foreign gold from him.
