SHOBHA SURESH JUMANI versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FORFEITED PROPERTY AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 04-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
SHOBHA SURESH JUMANI 
v. 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FORFEITED PROPERTY AND ANR. 
MAY 4, 20001 
[B.N. KIRPAL, M.B. SHAH AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) 
Act, 1976. 
A 
B 
S.12(4)- "Person · aggrieved"-Who is-Detention-Forfeiture of C 
property-Wife of detenu-Filing of appeal as "person aggrieved"-
Entitlement of-Held, "person aggrieved" means person whose property is 
illegally acquired and forfeited under the Act or whose legal rights qua the 
said property are adversely affected-There is no infringement of legal right 
of a wife of detenu-Thus, she is not entitled to file an appeal as "person D 
aggrieved". 
S.2(2)(c)-Applicability of-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-
--..(_ 
Persons convicted under-Non-inclusion of-Need for amendment-Suggested. 
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956--Ss. 18, 27 and 28-
E 
Hindu wife--Maintenance from husband-Entitlement of-Whether creates a 
charge for maintenance on the property forfeited-Held, No-Smugglers and 
Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. 
Words & Phrases 
"Person aggrievecf'-Meaning of in the context of S.12(4) of the 
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 
1976. 
F 
"Dependant"-Meaning of in the context of S.21 of the Hindu Adoption 
and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
G 
The issue involved in the present appeal was whether appellant, wife of 
a detenu, whose property was forfeited under the Smugglers and Foreign 
Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was entitled to 
file and appeal as "person aggrieved" under S.12(4) of the Act. 
525 
H 
A 
·B 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
On behalf of appellant it was contended that the order passed by the 
Tribunal was illegal and erroneous because "any person aggrieved by an 
order of the competent authority" was entitled to file an ~ppeal under Section 
12( 4) of the Act and appellant being wife of the detenu was an aggrieved 
person; that the appellant apart from being wife was also entitled to have 
charge for niaintenance from the properties which are forfeited and, therefore, 
she was "person aggrieved" by the order of the competent authority. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Appellant-wife of detenu whose property is forfeited under 
the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) 
C Act, 1976 is not entitled to file an appeal as ''person aggrieved" under S.12(4) 
of the Act. (528-B] 
1.2. Under the scheme of the Act 'any person ag~rieved' by an order 
of the competent authority would mean person whose property is held to be 
illegally acquired under the Act and which is to be forfeited or whose legal 
D rights qua the said property are adversely affected. Therefore, a relative or· 
associate, who has-no interest or right in such property cannot be held to 
be a person aggrieved. It is true that wife may be aggrieved because her 
husband's properties are forfeited. But that would not confer a right to file 
an appeal against such order. There is no infringement of her legal right. 
For the purpose of the Act husband and wife are different entities. If the 
E properties standing in the name of relative or associate are forfeited on the 
ground that smugglers or foreign exchange manipulators were holding the 
said properties in their names or that such properties are legally acquired, 
then to that extent, for challenging the said finding, the relative 01' associate 
can be held to be person aggrieved by the order of the competent authority. 
F But, a relative or associate can not be considered to be aggrieved if the 
properties belonging to the Smuggler or Foreign Exchange manipulator are 
forfeited under the Act. (532-C-F] 
Thammanna v. K. M?era Reddy, (1980) 4 SCC 62 and Northern Plastics 
Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Others., (1997) 4 SCC 452, 
G referred1to. 
I 
Sidebotham, Re, ex P Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch D 458, referred to. 
Blacks Law Dictionary, referred to. 
2. Section 18 of the Hindu Adopti~n and Maintenance Act, 1956 only 
H provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband 
. 'r"- . 
S.S. JUMANI v. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FORFEITED PROPERTY 
527 
/ 
during her life time if she is staying separately as provided under sub-section A 
...... 
r 
(2). Section 27 provides that dependant's claim for maintenance under the 
Act shall not be a charge on the estate of the decreased or any portion
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.