9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, vide order dated October 29, 1987. Madhuriben Vasantlal Mandvivala, the appellant, is his wife. The Competent Authority, Ahmedabad, treating the appellant as an affected person in terms of section 2(2)(c) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereafter "the Act"), issued her a notice under section 6(1) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expenses incurred on the construction of the house has not been proved. The unexplained amount being less than 50% of the total cost, the Competent Authority has given the benefit of section 9 of the Act for paying fine in lieu of forfeiture. A fine of Rs. 25,799 was directed to be paid and in default the house forfeited. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (2). (2) The persons referred to in sub-section (1) are the following, namely: (a) every person (i) who has been convicted under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, or the Customs Act, 1962, of an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees ; or . . . " It is clear that the conviction of the husband of the appellant under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, or the Customs Act, 1962, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the person who is not an affected person in terms of section 2 of the Act. The proceedings under the Act initiated against her are bad in law and liable to be set aside.
In view of the above finding, the necessity of discussing the other issues on merits is obviated.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Competent Authority set aside. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
