Service by affixture at the last known address upheld, but prejudicial rectification without hearing was invalid.

Service of a forfeiture order under the SAFEMA was valid where it was effected at the last known address on record by affixture supported by panchanamas, and prior tendering was not a mandatory precondition to registered post or affixture; the appeal was therefore time-barred. A corrigendum issued under the rectification power was, however, invalid because it materially altered the description of the forfeited properties and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given before the change. The proviso requiring notice and hearing applied mandatory where the amendment was prejudicial, so the corrigendum was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether service of the forfeiture order by affixture complied with section 22 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. (ii) Whether the corrigendum issued under section 20 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was valid without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether service of the forfeiture order by affixture complied with section 22 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.

Analysis: Section 22 permits service either by tendering the order or by sending it by registered post, and if service cannot be effected in that manner, by affixture at the property or at the premises where the person last resided or carried on business. The Tribunal held that the addresses used were the last known permanent addresses on record, that the appellants had not specifically informed the authority of any change of address, and that the affixture was supported by the panchanamas. The Tribunal further held that prior tendering was not a mandatory precondition to service by registered post or affixture.

Conclusion: Service of the order was valid, and the appeal was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the corrigendum issued under section 20 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was valid without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Analysis: Section 20 permits rectification of mistakes, but the proviso requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard if the amendment is likely to affect a person prejudicially. The Tribunal found that the corrigendum materially altered the description of the forfeited properties and that no notice or hearing had been given before issuing it. Since the change was substantive and prejudicial, compliance with the proviso was mandatory.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was invalid and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The forfeiture appeal failed on limitation, but the subsequent corrigendum could not be sustained for breach of the mandatory hearing requirement and was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rectification materially prejudices a person, the proviso requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is mandatory, and service by affixture is valid when effected at the last known address in accordance with the statute.

---