In Brief
Under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, the Supreme Court resolved a conflict between High Courts on whether a primary notice under Section 6 must be served on a convict when the Competent Authority seeks to forfeit properties held in the names of the convict's relatives. The Court held that no primary notice to the convict is mandatory when properties are held by the relatives themselves (as recorded owners and in possession). Notice need only be issued to the person holding the property—the person directly affected by forfeiture. The Court set aside the Madras High Court's decision and remanded for consideration of other issues including the delay in initiating proceedings.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.