Petitioner challenged forfeiture order under SAFEMA for his son's prosecution. Court held mandatory Section 6 notice was not issued to petitioner. Petition allowed.
Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
13.WP2327_2017.doc
Vidya Amin.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2017
Bapu Shantaram Satam … Petitioner vs. Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Ayaz Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Venegaokar a/w. Mr, D.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 1,3.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 14th January, 2019
P.C. :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Writ Petition is heard and decided finally at the stage of admission.
1 of 2
13.WP2327_2017.doc
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether forfeiture of property order passed without issuing mandatory notice under Section 6 of SAFEMA is legal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Aslam Mohammed vs. Competent Authority & Ors.Referred¶13
(2008) 14 SCC 186 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bapu Shantaram Satam
Union of India
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
