Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (5) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal dismissed. - CRL. APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2001 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2001 - Judge(s) : B. N. KIRPAL., M. B. SHAH., MRS. RUMA PAL JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M. B. SHAH J.--- The short question requiring consideration in this appeal is-whether a wife whose husband's property is ordered to be forfeited under the Sniugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the SAFEMA"), is entitled to file an appeal as "person aggrieved" under section 12(4) of the Act ? Before dealing with the contentions, the facts in a nutshell are that the Government of India issued detention order dated November 16, 1995, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA"), against one Suresh Manoharlal jumani, resident of Khar (West), Mumbai. It appears that the order of detention was not implemented as he was absconding. However, his detention order is neither revoked nor quashed by any court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the SAFEMA, the competent authority is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and erroneous because "any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority" is entitled to file an appeal under section 12(4) of the SAFEMA and the appellant being the wife of the detenue is an aggrieved person. He also submitted that the appellant apart from being the wife is also entitled to have a charge for maintenance from the properties which are forfeited and, therefore, she is "person aggrieved" by the order of the competent authority. First, we would reiterate that the words "any aggrieved person" are found in several statutes. However, the meaning of the expression "aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circumstances. In Sidebotham, In re : ex parte Sidebotham [1880] 14 Ch D 458 (CA) at page 465, it was observed by James L.J. : "But the words 'person aggrieved' do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfull .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred to in clause (a) or clause (b) unless by purchase or in good faith for consideration. Explanations 2 and 3 provide for the meaning of the words "relative" and "associate" respectively. Relative includes spouse of the person. At this stage, we would mention that there appears to be some mistake in omitting the persons who are convicted of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, even though, illegally acquired property is given exhaustive meaning under clause (c) of section 3(1) of the Act to mean any property acquired by "such person" wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets derived or obtained from or attributable to any activity prohibited by or under any law for the time being in force relating to any matter of which Parliament has power to make laws. The definition gives further inclusive meaning with which we are not concerned at present. Section 4 prohibits the holding of illegally acquired property by providing "it, shall not be lawful for any person to whom this Act applies to hold any illegally acquired property either by himself or through any other person on his behalf". Sub-section (2) provides that such property shal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erty is held to be illegally acquired under the Act and which is to be forfeited or whose legal rights qua the said property are adversely affected. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "aggrieved party" refers to a party whose personal, pecuniary or property rights have been adversely affected by another person's actions or by a court's decree or judgment.---Also termed party aggrieved ; person aggrieved. Therefore, a relative or associate, who has no interest or right in such property cannot be held to be a person aggrieved. It is true that the wife may be aggrieved because her husband's properties are forfeited. But that would not confer a right to file an appeal against such order. There is no infringement of her legal right. For the purposes of the Act husband and wife are different entities. If the properties standing in the name of a relative or associate are forfeited on the ground that smugglers or foreign exchange manipulators were holding the said properties in their names or that such properties are illegally acquired, then to that extent, for challenging the said finding, the relative or associate can be held to be a person aggrieved by the order of the competent a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of corrupt practices could be forfeited under the provisions by suitable amendment in the Act. The question whether the time is ripe for such amendment or not is to be decided by the Legislature. However, we cannot turn our eyes to the fact that because of the mad race of becoming rich and acquiring properties overnight or because of the ostentatious or vulgar show of wealth by a few or because of change of environment in society by adoption of a materialistic approach, the cancerous growth of corruption and illegal gains or profits has affected the moral standards of the people and all forms of governmental administration. It is to be mentioned that under the Indian Penal Code, various punishments are provided in section 53 which include forfeiture of property and sections 61 and 62 provide sentence of forfeiture of property. However, sections 61 and 62 were deleted by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921. But considering the situation prevailing in the society, it appears that the said provisions are required to be re-introduced so as to have a deterrent effect on those who are bent upon accumulating wealth at the cost of society by misusing their post or power. We hope th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates