Conscious revocation of detention under SAFEMA requires intentional government action; general release after emergency is not enough.

The third proviso to section 2(2) of SAFEMA was held inapplicable because release of the detenu after lifting of the emergency was not a conscious, voluntary revocation of detention by the appropriate Government; the term "revoked" was construed as requiring intentional application of mind, which was absent in a general release order. The Tribunal also held that the validity of the original detention order could not be reopened in forfeiture proceedings where it had not been challenged in the proper forum, so later attacks based on alleged defects in detention were impermissible. The preliminary objection was rejected and the Act was held applicable to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the third proviso to section 2(2) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was attracted where the detenu was released on the lifting of emergency before the first review period expired, and whether the appellant could challenge the validity of the detention order in forfeiture proceedings.

Analysis: The appellant's objection went to the root of the Competent Authority's jurisdiction, so the Tribunal treated the applicability of the Act as a preliminary question. The release of the detenu before the expiry of the four-month review period was held not to amount to a conscious revocation of detention by the appropriate Government. The expression "revoked" in the proviso was understood as an intentional and voluntary revocation after application of mind, which was absent where release followed a general order upon lifting of emergency. The Tribunal also held that the legality of the original detention order could not be reopened in SAFEMA proceedings when the detenu had not challenged that order in the proper forum, and therefore later reliance on alleged defects in detention was impermissible.

Conclusion: The third proviso to section 2(2) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 did not apply, the Act was applicable to the appellant, and the preliminary objection was rejected.

---