Dismissed

M.Adbudl Rahiman v. Union of India

Kerala HC6 Aug 2008WA/1638/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal against the rejection of the petitioner's writ petition challenging forfeiture proceedings. Upholding the Single Judge's view, the Court held that a property transfer after a Section 6 notice is null and void under Section 11 of the S&FEM Act, causing forfeiture rather than allowing a fine.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of findings reached by the learned Single Judge and rejection of the Writ Appeal.

M.Adbudl Rahiman Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930

¶5

W.A.No.1638 of 2008

¶6

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.3519/2000 DATED 19/09/2007

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:-

¶9

¶10

M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 56 YEARS, CHITTARIKKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-

¶13

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.

¶15

COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SAFEM (FOF) & NDPS ACTS, NO.64/1, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI.

¶16

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.

¶20

---------------------------------------------W.A.No.1638 of 2008-D

¶21

Dated, this the 6^th day of August, 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

H.L.Dattu,C.J.

¶24

The confiscation proceedings initiated by the authorities under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (“Act” for short) was called in question by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.3519 of 2000. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by order dated 19^th September, 2007. It is the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question by the writ petitioner in this Writ Appeal.

¶25

Facts in nutshell are: The petitioner/appellant has purchased an item of property from one Ummer, who was found to be an associate of late L.K.Mohideen alias Haji Mohideen, a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Before forfeiture of the property under the provisions of the Act, a notice had been issued to Ummer. After service of notice, Ummer had parted with the immovable property, which was standing in his name. Keeping in view Section 11 of the Act, the authorities under the Act have come to the conclusion that the entire transaction between Ummer and the petitioner is null and void. The

¶26

W.A.No.1638 of 2008

¶27

¶28

conclusion so reached by the authorities is called in question by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶29

The learned Single Judge, taking note of Sections 6, 9 and 11 of the Act, has come to the conclusion that though the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, in view of the language employed in Section 11 of the Act by the framers of the Act, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that since he is a bona fide purchaser the property need not be forfeited, but a fine may be accepted from him.

¶30

Section 11 of the Act says that certain transfers to be null and void. The said Section makes it clear that if a notice under Section 6 or Section 10 of the Act is issued, such person, who is the owner of the property or holding the property by himself or through any other person on his behalf, is not expected to transfer the property and if such a transfer is made, the same is null and void.

¶31

Admittedly, a notice under Section 6 of the Act had been issued to Ummer. But, Ummer had sold the property to the petitioner after receiving the notice under Section 6 of the Act. In view of the language employed in Section 11 of the Act, in our opinion, the entire transaction between Ummer and the petitioner is null and void. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has, rightly, rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error, whatsoever, in the

¶32

W.A.No.1638 of 2008

¶33

¶34

orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which would call for our interference in appeal.

¶35