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

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 525

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, M.B. SHAH, RUMA PAL

Judgment text

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 ofProperty) Act, 1976. S. 12(4)- "Person ·aggrieved"-Who is-Detention-Forfeiture of 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 oflegal right of a wife of detenu-Thus, she is not entitled to file an appeal as "person aggrieved". S. 2(2)(c)-Applicability of-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- --.. (_ Persons convicted under-Non-inclusion of-Needfor amendment-Suggested. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956--Ss.

18, 27 and 28- 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 ofProperty) Act, 1976. "Dependant"-Meaning ofin the context ofS. 21 ofthe Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 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.

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, ·B 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) 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 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 . 'r"- . 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 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. 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, referred to. 1 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 provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband S. S. JUMANI v.

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FORFEITED PROPERTY 527 / ...... during her life time if she is staying separately as provided under sub-section 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 thereof, unless one has been created by the will of the deceased, by a decree of court, by agreement between the dependant and the owner of the estate or portion, or otherwise. Section 28 further provides that where a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of the estate and if such estate is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee, if the transferee has notice of such right or if the transferee is _)C gratuitous. The word 'dependant' is defined under Section 21 to mean relatives of the deceased, namely, (1) his or her father; (2) his or her mother; (3) his widow, so long as she does not remarry but does not include the wife whose husband _is surviving.

Thus, in the instant case, no charge for maintenance was created in favour of the appellant on the properties which are forfeited. [532-H; 533-A-B] 3. It is difficult to comprehend the reason for not including a person who is convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the defmition of Section 2(2) (c) of the Act. It appears that for controlling the cancerous , - -under the Act shall not be a charge on the estate of the deceased or any portion thereof, unlt:ss one has been created by the will of the deceased, by a decree of court, by agreement between the dependant and the owner of the estate or portion, or otherwise. Section 28 further provides that where a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of the estate and if such estate·is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee, if the transferee has notice of such right or if the transferee is gratuitous.

At this stage, we would make it clear that the word 'dependant' is defined under Section 21 to mean relatives ofthe deceased, namely, (1) his or her. father; (2) his or her mother; (3) his widow, so long as she does not remarry but does not include the wife whose husband is surviving. In any case admittedly no charge for maintenance was created in favour of the appellant on the properties which are forfeited. She has not suffered any legal grievance and has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Before parting with the judgment, we would observe that it is difficult to comprehend the reason for not including a person who is convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the definition of Section 2(2)(c) of the Act.

It appears that for controlling the cancerous growth of corruption apart from further deterrent provisions, illegally acquired properties by means of corrupt practices could be forfeited under the provisions by suitable amendment in the Act. The question whether the time is ripe for such amendment or not is to be decided by the Legislature. However, we cannot turn our eyes to the fact that because of mad race of becoming rich and acquiring properties overnight or because of ostentatious or vulgar show of wealth by few or because ofchange of environment in the society by adoption of materialistic approach, cancerous growth ofcorruption and illegal gains or profits has affected the moral standards of the people and all forms of governmental administration. It is to be mentioned that under the Indian Penal Code, various punishments are provided in Section 53 which include forfeiture of property and Sections 61 and 62 provided sentence offorfeiture ofproperty.

However, sections 61 and 62 were deleted by Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921. But considering the situation prevailing in the society, it appears that the said provisions are required to be re-introduced so as to have deterrent effect on those who are bent upon to accumulate wealth at the cost . of the society by misusing their post or power. We hope that the Legislature would consider this aspect appropriately. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. S. v. K. Appeal dismissed.