BISWANATH BHATTACHARYA versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 21-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 885 
BISWANATH BHATIACHARYA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 772-773 of 2014) 
JANUARY 21, 2014 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
SMUGGLERS 
AND 
FOREIGN 
EXCHANGE 
MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 
A 
B 
1976: 
c 
s. 6(1) - Notice under - Requirement of recording reasons 
in the notice -Plea of appellant that notice issued u/s. 6 was 
defective as it did not contain reasons which made competent 
authority believe that notice scheduled properties were illegal D 
acquired property - Held: Plea not sustainable - There is no 
express statutory requirement to communicate the reasons 
issuance of notice u/s. 6 of the Act - Secondly, the re_asons, 
though not initially supplied alongwith the notice were 
subsequently supplied thereby enabling the appellant to 
E 
effectively meet the case of the respondents - The appellant 
not only filed a rejoinder to the said notice but he was a/so 
given a hearing before an order of forfeiture uls. 7 was passed 
- Further, an order of forfeiture is an appealable order where 
the correctness of the decision u/s. 7 to forfeit the properties 
F 
could be examined. 
ss. 7, 2(2) - Forfeiture of properties - If violative of Article 
20 of Constitution - Held: The application of the Act is limited 
to persons who have either suffered a conviction under one 
of the acts specified in s.2(2)(a) of the Act or detained under G 
the COFEPOSA subsequent to the commencement of the Act 
in question - Apart from that there are other categories of 
persons to whom the Act applies - Of all the five categories 
of persons to whom the Act is made applicable, only one 
885 
H 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A category specified u/s.2(2)(a) happens to be of persons who 
are found guilty of an offence under one of the enactments 
mentioned therein and convicted - The other four categories 
of persons to whom the Act is applicable are persons 
unconnected with any crime or conviction under any law while 
B the category of persons falling u/s. 2(2)(b) are persons who are 
believed by the State to be violators of law - The other three 
categories are simply persons who are associated with either 
of the two categories mentioned in s.2(2)(a) and (b) - At least 
with reference to the four categories other than the one 
c covered by s.2(2)(a}, the forfeiture/deprivation of the property 
is not a consequence of any conviction for an offence -
Therefore, with reference to these four categories, the question 
of violation of Article 20 does not arise - In case of first 
category, Article 20 would have no application for the reason, 
0 
conviction is only a factor by which the Parliament chose to 
identify the persons to whom the Act be made applicable -
The Act does not provide for the confiscation of the properties 
of all the convicts falling uls.2(2)(a} or detenues falling u/ 
s.2(2)(b). 
E 
s.2(2) - Forfeiture of illegally acquired property - Legality 
of - Held: There is a public interest in ensuring that persons 
who cannot establish that they have legitimate sources to 
acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such wealth -
Such a deprivation would certainly be consistent with the 
F requirement of Article 300A and 14 of the Constitution which 
prevent the State from arbitrarily depriving a subject of his 
property - Even otherwise, in view of its inclusion in the IXth 
Schedule, the Act is immune from attack on the ground that 
it violates any of the rights guaranteed under Part Ill of the 
G Constitution by virtue of the declaration under Article 31-B -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 31-B, 300A. 
LEGISLATION: Retrospective operation - Held: It is a 
well settled principle of constitutional law that sovereign 
H legislative bodies can make laws with retrospective operation; 
BISWANATH BHATTACHARYA v. UNION OF ·INDIA 
887 
and can make laws whose operation is dependent upon facts A 
or events anterior to the making of the law - However, criminal 
law is excepted from such general Rule, under another equally 
well settled principle of constitutional law, i.e. no ex post facto 
legislation is permissible with respect to criminal law - Article 
20 contains such exception to the general authority of the 
B 
sovereign legislature functioning under the Constitution to 
make retrospective or retroactive laws - Criminal law -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20. 
WRIT PETITION: Re-appreciation of evidence - Scope 
of - Plea that in view

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.