Recorded reasons as a jurisdictional safeguard: absence of written reasons vitiated forfeiture notices and orders.

Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA requires the Competent Authority to record in writing the reasons for believing, on relevant material, that property is illegally acquired before issuing notice. That recording is a jurisdictional safeguard, not a mere formality, because it permits scrutiny of whether the belief was formed in good faith on germane grounds. Where the record does not contain the recorded reasons, the authority cannot establish the foundation for the proceedings, and the affected person is not yet called upon to rebut the allegations. On those facts, the Tribunal treated the notices as issued without jurisdiction and held that the forfeiture proceedings and orders could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture proceedings were without jurisdiction for want of recorded reasons under section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, and whether the absence of such reasons on the record vitiated the notices and the consequential forfeiture orders.

Analysis: Section 6(1) requires the Competent Authority to have reason to believe, on the basis of the material available, that the properties are illegally acquired, and to record those reasons in writing before issuing notice. The requirement is not a formality: it is a jurisdictional safeguard, intended to ensure that the belief is formed in good faith and on relevant material, and to enable scrutiny of whether the grounds are germane and not extraneous. The record did not contain the reasons said to have been recorded, and the Tribunal could not verify their relevance or existence. In such circumstances, the burden on the affected persons to rebut the allegations of illegal acquisition does not arise, because the very foundation for initiating proceedings was not shown to exist. The Tribunal also held that non-communication was not the central defect in the facts of the case; the decisive defect was the absence of recorded reasons on the record.

Conclusion: The notices under section 6(1) were issued without jurisdiction and the forfeiture proceedings and orders could not stand.

---