Section 9. Fine in lieu of forfeiture
(1) Where the competent authority makes a declaration that any property stands forfeited to the Central Government under section 7 and it is a case where the source of only a part, being less than one-half, of the income, earnings or assets with which such property was acquired has not been proved to the satisfaction of the competent authority, it shall make an order giving an option to the person affected to pay, in lieu of forfeiture, a fine equal to one and one-fifth times the value of such part.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, the value of any part of income, earnings or assets, with which any property has been acquired, shall be,--
(a) in the case of any part of income or earnings, the amount of such part of income or earnings;
(b) in the case of any part of assets, the proportionate part of the full value of the consideration for the acquisition of such assets.
(2) Before making an order imposing a fine under sub-section (1), the person affected shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(3) Where the person affected pays the fine due under sub-section (1), within such time as may be allowed in that behalf, the competent authority may, by order, revoke the declaration of forfeiture under section 7 and thereupon such property shall stand released.
Judgements applying section 9
Original owners challenged the Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of their delayed appeals against forfeiture of their property under SAFEMA, citing non-service and lack of knowledge.
DismissedOpenNeutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1367. W.P.No.20795 of 2002, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Division Bench (Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, author; Justice Sunder Mohan), pronounced 02.04.2026, reserved 10.03.2026. SAFEMA 1976 Section 9 fine in lieu of forfeiture; COFEPOSA detenu Abdul Razak @ Asmath Pasha;
DisposedOpenSAFEMA 1976 forfeiture; COFEPOSA detention 1975 (Emergency); Section 2(2)(b) person affected; Section 6(1) notice dated 31.03.1976; Section 7(1) forfeiture order dated 08.08.1995; Section 8 burden of proof on affected person not discharged by legal heirs; Section 9 option to pay cost where 50% consideration explained;
DismissedOpenUmrao Bai v. Competent Authority, SAFEM(FOP) Act 1976 — S.6(1) notice (21.12.1977) and S.7(1) forfeiture (12.07.1995) of Sithik Alima's 50% share (wife of COFEPOSA detenu S.A. Yaseen);
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;
DismissedOpenCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8157 OF 2022 Ravi (Ravindra) Sheena Kotian … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8163 OF 2022 Girish Bangera & Anr. … Peti
Show 4 more
The High Court disposed of two writ petitions concerning the Safe and Forfeiture Act, relying on a government communication. The court directed the authority to halt enforcement steps pending the tribunal's decision on pending appeals.
Petitioners challenged a forfeiture notice under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act affecting properties they purchased for adequate consideration.
DisposedOpenThree petitions arising from SAFEMA forfeiture proceedings against a detenu's relatives and the tenants of the forfeited building. The High Court quashed the order of detention and the consequential forfeiture orders, holding that SAFEMA proceedings could not survive once the detention order was revoked on the lifting…
AllowedOpenNazir Ahmedd Usmangani Digmar Heir and Legal Vs Competent Authority Under the Safem Act
Outcome: AllowedCommon judgment in three petitions arising from SAFEMA forfeiture of properties linked to a COFEPOSA detenu. The court quashed the detention order and the consequential forfeiture orders, holding the detention was solely to deal with the emergency, and that long-standing tenants could not be dispossessed without…
AllowedOpen