STATE OF GOA AND ANR. versus HIRABHAI SOMABHAI TANDEL, NANI, DAMAN

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 05-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ST A TE OF GOA AND ANR. 
v. 
HIRABHAI SOMABHAI TANDEL, NANI, DAMAN 
NOVEMBER 5, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974 : Section 3(1) 
C 
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) 
Act, 1975 : Section 7. 
Detention Order-Validity of-Detention order under Section 3(1) of 
1974 Act passed against the step father of Respondent-Thereafter order 
D passed under Section 7of1976 Act forfeiting property of respondent-Order 
forfeiting property not challenged by respondent-Thereafter respondent 
challenged the order of detention of his step father-High Court set aside the 
detention order holding that grounds for detention were not served on the 
detenu-Appeal by State before Supreme Court-Held writ challenging 
detention was not maintainable-After the order of Forfeiture had been 
E passed under SAFEMA validity of detention order could not be scrutinised 
Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Amratlal Prajivandas and Ors., 
[1994] 5 sec 54, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 219 
F of 1991. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.89 of the Bombay High Court 
in Cr!. W.P. No. 27of1989. 
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. 
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The validity of the order dated 15th November, 1989 passed by the 
H Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Panaji Bench) Goa in Criminal Writ 
54 
•• 
STATE OF GOA v. H.S. TANDEL, NANI, DAMAN 
SS 
Petition No. 27/89 is under challenge in this appeal. On 24th July, 1975 an A 
order of detention under Section 3( 1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was passed against the 
step father of the respondent. It is an admitted position that such respondent 
was kept on detention for more than a year but was released before the expiry 
of two years. On 29th October, 1979 a notice was issued to the respondent B 
for forfeiture of the property held by the step father of the respondent under 
the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture 
of Property) Act 1976. No challenge was made against such notification and 
on 19th December, 1985 the competent authority under the said Act (hereinafter 
referred to as SAFEMA) passed order under Section 7 of the SAFEMA 
directing for forfeiture of the property of the respondent. No appeal or writ C 
petition was filed by the respondent challenging such forfeiture. 1t may be 
stated that pursuant to the said order of forfeiture the property was sold in 
auction in August, 1989 to the Daman Administration for sum of Rs. 2,59,256 
and possession of the said property had been handed over to the said Daman 
Administration. The respondent filed that Criminal writ petition No. 27/89 
before the Goa Bench on 17th July, 1989 challenging the order of detention D 
of her step father. The High Court entertained such writ petition and set aside 
the order of detention on the finding that the grounds for detention had not 
been served on the detenu. 
Ms. A. Subhashini the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has E 
submitted that the said writ petition should not have been entertained by the 
High Court. After the order of forfeiture had been passed under SAFEMA 
validity of the order of detention was not to be scrutinised. In support of such 
contention, she has referred to the nine judges' Bench decision of this Court 
made in Attorney General for India and Ors. v. Amratla/ Prajivandas and 
Ors., [1994] 5 sec 54. The ratio of the decision had been summarised in para F 
56 of the said decision and it has been clearly indicated that 
56. (b): An order of detention to which Section 12-A is applicable as 
well as an order of detention to which Section 12-A was not applicable 
can serve as the foundation, as the basis, for applying SAFEMA to G 
such detenu and to his relatives and associates provided such order 
of detention does not attract any of the sub-clauses in the proviso 
to Section 2(2). If such detenu did not choose to question the said 
detention (either by himself or through his next friend) before the 
Court during the period when such order of detention was in force, 
or is unsuccessful in his attack thereon - he, or his relatives and H 
A 
B 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
associates cannot attack or question its validity when it is

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