THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 09-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 777 : 2023 INSC 997
777
CASE DETAILS
THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Detention order passed under Conservation 
of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 
subsequently revoked/withdrawn, proceedings under Smugglers and Foreign 
Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 if would become 
non est and untenable, as claimed.
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture 
of Property) Act, 1976 – s.2(2)(b) and its proviso – Application – 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974 – ss.3, 9, 12 – Detention order passed u/s.3 revoked/
withdrawn, impugned proceedings under the SAFEMA if can be 
maintained:
Held: s.2 provides for the application of the provisions of the Act 
only to the persons specifi ed in sub-section (2) thereof – According to 
sub-section (2)(b) every person in respect of whom an order of detention 
has been made under COFEPOSA, the Act would be applicable subject 
to four clauses mentioned under the proviso thereto – For the purposes 
of this case, the relevant provisions are confi ned to s.2(2)(b) and its 
proviso – Apart from the four contingencies given in clauses (i) to (iv), 
every person against whom an order of detention has been passed under 
COFEPOSA, the provisions of SAFEMA would apply – Admittedly, an 
order of detention under COFEPOSA was made against the appellants – 
Order of detention was not revoked on the report of the Advisory Board 
or before the receipt of the report of Advisory Board or before making a 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
reference to the Advisory Board – Further, it was an order of detention 
passed u/s.3, COFEPOSA – s.9 and s.12A, COFEPOSA had no application 
to the detention order – As such, clause (i) would not be applicable – Clause 
(ii) would also not be applicable in as much as neither the detention order 
was made to which provisions of s.9, COFEPOSA would apply nor had it 
been revoked before the expiry of the time on the basis of review on the 
report of the Advisory Board – Furthermore, clause (iii) would also not be 
applicable as s.12A, COFEPOSA had no application to the detention order 
– Lastly, the detention order was not set aside by the Court of competent 
jurisdiction – Therefore, clause (iv) would also have no application – To 
the contrary, appellant had made a representation against the detention 
order which was rejected – Said order was challenged before the High 
Court by way of a writ petition which was also dismissed on merits – The 
revocation however was made on a statement given on behalf of the Union 
of India before Supreme Court in order to institute a complaint under the 
relevant statute – The said revocation is not contemplated u/s.2(2)(b) and 
its proviso, and, therefore, no benefi t can be extended to the appellant(s) 
on the said count – Therefore, the impugned judgment confi rming the 
order of forfeiture of properties u/s.7, SAFEMA does not suff er from any 
infi rmity warranting interference – Customs Act, 1962 - Gold (Control) 
Act, 1968. [Paras 1, 22-22.4, 23]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Attorney General for India vs. Amratlal Prajivandas and others (1994) 
5 SCC 54: [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 1 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No.5500 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2010 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in WP No.1212 of 1995.
With
Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2014.
779
THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
AND ORS.
Appearances:
Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. Adv., Kumar Ankur, Karan Bindra, Bipul 
Kedia, Chayan Sarkar, Anupam Prakash, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Shailendra 
Kumar, Irfan Hasieb, Krishnajyoti Deka, Rishabh Munjal, Ms. Mahesh 
Sharma, Ms. Neelam Singh, Ms. Priyanshi Bhati, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Prashant Rawat, 
Siddharth Sinha, S.A. Haseeb, Pratyush Srivastava, Aaditya Aniruddha 
Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya 
Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. These two appeals challenge the impugned orders of the High Court 
more or less on the same and similar grounds as such

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