Section 9. Cases in which and circumstances under which persons may be detained for periods longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of Advisory Board
1[9. Cases in which and circumstances under which persons may be detained for periods longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of Advisory Board.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person (including a foreigner) in respect of whom an order of detention is made under this Act at any time before the 2[31st day of July, 1999], may be detained without obtaining, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution, the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period longer than three months but not exceeding six months from the date of his detention, where the order of detention has been made against such person with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods or abetting the smuggling of goods or engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods and the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, is satisfied that such person--
(a) smuggles or is likely to smuggle goods into, out of or through any area highly vulnerable to smuggling; or
(b) abets or is likely to abet the smuggling of goods into, out of or through any area highly vulnerable to smuggling; or
(c) engages or is likely to engage in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in any area highly vulnerable to smuggling,
and makes a declaration to that effect within five weeks of the detention of such person.
Explanation1.--In this sub-section, "area highly vulnerable to smuggling" means--
(i) The Indian customs waters contiguous to 3[The States of Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and the Union territories of Daman and Diu and Pondicherry];
(ii) The inland area fifty kilometres in width from the coast of India falling within the territories of 3[the States of Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and the Union territories of Daman and Diu and Pondicherry];
(iii) the inland area fifty kilometres in width from the India-Pakistan border in the States of Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Rajasthan;
(iv) the customs airport of Delhi; and
(v) such further or other Indian customs waters, or inland area not exceeding one hundred kilometres in width from any other coast or border of India, or such other customs station, as the Central Government may, having regard to the vulnerability of such waters, area or customs station, as the case may be, to smuggling, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
Explanation 2.--For the purposes of Explanation 1, "customs airport" and "customs station" shall have the same meaning as in clauses (10) and (13) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), respectively.
(2) In the case of any person detained under a detention order to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply, section 8 shall have effect subject to the following modifications, namely:--
(i) in clause (b), for the words "shall, within five weeks", the words "shall, within four months and two weeks" shall be substituted;
(ii) in clause (c),--
(1) for the words "the detention of the person concerned", the words "the continued detention of the person concerned" shall be substituted;
(2) for the words "eleven weeks", the words "five months and three weeks" shall be substituted; (iii) in clause (f), for the words "for the detention", at both the places where they occur, the words "for the continued detention" shall be substituted.]
Judgements applying section 9
The Tribunal held that the forfeiture order passed under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 remains valid even if the underlying detention order under COFEPOSA lapsed by efflux of time due to lack of Government confirmation.
Few appeals challenged forfeiture of properties and bank accounts ordered by the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.
SAFEMA forfeiture; COFEPOSA detention order; revocation/withdrawal of detention order; s.2(2)(b) SAFEMA proviso clauses (i)-(iv); Advisory Board; undertaking/statement by Union of India before Supreme Court; Customs Act 1962 s.135(1)(b) complaint and discharge; Gold (Control) Act 1968 s.85 penalties;
DismissedOpenM/S. Platinum Theatre and Others versus Competent Authority Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and Another
Outcome: DismissedSAFEM(FOP) Act 1976 forfeiture of M/s. Platinum Theatre; burden of proof under s.8 on person affected; s.9 fine in lieu of forfeiture only if unexplained portion less than one-half; COFEPOSA detenu's partnership firm and associates under s.2(2)(b) and (d) with Explanation 3; unexplained investment Rs.13.12 lakhs;
DismissedOpenSupreme Court, 08.04.2019, Criminal Appeals Nos. 1492-1493 of 2009 (Uday Umesh Lalit and Hemant Gupta JJ.; judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit J.), dismissing challenges to SAFEMA forfeiture. Key terms: SAFEMA s.2(2)(b) and its four-part proviso; COFEPOSA ss.3, 3(1), 3(2), 5-A, 8(f), 9, 10, 10A, 12A; MISA s.3(2);
DismissedOpenPetition challenging forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA and the COFEPOSA detention order underlying it. The detenu had been acquitted in the smuggling case; the properties stood in the names of his widow and HUF and were purchased through loans disclosed in income tax returns.
AllowedOpen