Forfeiture of illegally acquired property may extend to assets held by relatives or associates, with burden on the affected person.

The Act treats illegally acquired property broadly and permits forfeiture of property held directly or indirectly for a detenue or convict, including assets standing in the name of a relative or associate if traceable to illegal activity. Once notice is issued on recorded reasons to believe, the affected person bears the burden of proving that the property is not illegally acquired. Findings on the source of funds are primarily factual, and writ interference is limited to perversity or irrelevant material. Income-tax acceptance of funds does not bind proceedings under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether property held by a relative or associate of a detenue/convict could be forfeited under the Act on proof that it was traceable to illegal activity, and whether the person affected bears the burden of proving that the property is not illegally acquired.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats "illegally acquired property" broadly and authorises forfeiture of property held by the person to whom the Act applies, whether directly or through another person on his behalf. The notice under section 6 is founded on reasons to believe, recorded in writing, that the properties are illegally acquired. Once such proceedings are initiated, section 8 places the burden on the affected person to prove that the property is not illegally acquired. The Act is aimed at reaching property of the detenue/convict and property traceable to him, even when held in the name of a relative or associate. Findings of the competent authority and the Tribunal on the source of funds and the petitioner's inability to account for the investments were based on detailed factual examination. In writ jurisdiction, interference with such findings is limited and is not warranted unless the conclusions are perverse or based on irrelevant material. The plea that income-tax assessments accepted the petitioner's source of funds was rejected because findings under other laws are not conclusive under the Act.

Conclusion: The property was liable to forfeiture and the petitioner failed to discharge the statutory burden; the challenge to the forfeiture failed.

---