TEKCHAND versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 31-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·--1 
.-( 
A 
TEKCHAND ETC. 
v. 
COMPETENT AUTHORITY 
MARCH 31, 1993 
.,.,, 
B 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
-
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Foifeiture of Property) 
Act, 197fr-Sections 2(2)(b), 3(e), 4, 6, and 7-Foifeiture of Property-Deten-
lion under Customs Act or FERA-Whether applied only to persons detained 
c before the commencement of the Act. 
Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976: Sections 11 and 
>-· 
• 
16-/mmunity conferred-Not absolute but limited in characte.-Not to ex-
tend lo proceedings under other enactments. 
D 
In 1975, the appellant, a dealer in watches and his sons the other 
appellants, made voluntary disclosure of certain income under the 
provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act. On that 
basis proceedings were taken under the Act and concluded by the Depart-
ment. 
E 
In 1976, an order of detention was passed against the first appellant 
under the provisions of COFEPOSA. He served out the detention period. 
Thereafter, in 1978 notices under Section 6 of the Smugglers and 
--
Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 
F 
(SAFEMA) wa• served upon the appellants calling upon them to show 
cause why the properties mentioned in the notices be not forfeited to the 
;J, 
Central Government. They were also called upon to explain the income, 
earnings or assets out of which they had acquired those properties. In his 
explanation, the first appellant stated that he had made a disclosure of a 
G 
sum of Rs.25,000 in Form-A under the Voluntary Disclosure Act which was 
accepted by the Competent Authority and a certificate was issued to the 
appellant. He also filed a copy of the said certificate. He also set out the 
"(. 
manner in which the said sum was utilised after the disclosure. He also 
submitted that he cannot be asked to explain the source from which he 
obtained the said sum of Rs.25,000, and calling upon him to do so, would 
H violate the immunity granted to him under the Voluntary Disclosure Act. 
864 
"-
TEK CHAND ,._ COMPETENT AUTI10RITY 
865 
Similar pleas were taken by bis two sons, the other appellants. The A 
Competent Authority over-ruled the objections and forfeited the proper-
ties specified in the orders. The appellants preferred appeals before the 
Appellate Tribunal which partly allowed the appeals. To the extent the 
~ 
Tribunal affirmed the orders of forfeiture, the appellants preferred the 
present appeals. 
On behalf ol' the appellants, it was contended that the Act 
(SAFEMA) applied only in case of persons who were detained under the 
COFEPOSA prior to the commencement of SAFEMA, that it did not apply 
B 
to persons who h&d been detained under COFEPOSA after the commen-
cement of SAFEMA. It was further contended that the findings recorded C 
by the authorities were perverse and not supported by any evidence and 
that the procedure prescribed by the Act had not been followed 
scrupulously which vitiated the order of forfeiture. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
D 
HELD : 1.1. There is nothing in the Smugglers and Foreign Ex-
change Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1976, (SAFEMA) to 
indicate either directly or by necessary intendment that the Act is confined 
only to thpse persons who have been detained under COFEPOSA or who 
have been convicted under the Customs Act or FERA prior to the com-
E 
nlencement of SAFEMA. The use of the word "has been made' in Section 
2(2)(b) does not and cannot lead to such conclusion. The use of the said 
words must be understood in the contest of Section 2(2). Section 2(2)(b) 
provides that every person in respect of whom an order of detention has 
been made and which detention order has not been revoked or withdrawn 
by the competent authority nor has been set aside by a competent court F 
can be proceeded against under SAFEMA. A mere detention under 
COFEPOSA is not enough. [871 C-E] 
1.2. If the intention of the Parliament was that the detention should 
have been prior to the commencement of SAFEMA, they would have said G 
that the question should be determined 011/y with reference to the facts, 
circumstance and events including any conviction of detention which oc-
curred or took place before the commencement of the SAFEMA. [87Z A-BJ 
2. The immunity conferred under Sections 11 and 16 of the Volun-
tary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 is of a limited character H 
'· 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
and that i

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