Revocation of detention does not bar forfeiture where lawful source of property is unproved, with limited relief for partly explained investment.

A revocation of a detention order by the detaining authority under COFEPOSA is not treated as a judicial setting aside or quashing for excluding a person from forfeiture proceedings. The protective provisos to the forfeiture statute apply only in the situations expressly stated, so revocation simpliciter does not defeat applicability of the law. On merits, properties linked to the detenu were held liable to forfeiture where lawful acquisition was not proved and the income-tax material supported use of undisclosed income. The hotel property received only limited statutory protection because part of the investment was explained, leaving a quantified unexplained balance subject to conditional relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a mere revocation of a detention order under section 11(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA could be equated with a detention order being set aside or quashed for the purpose of excluding the appellant from the ambit of the forfeiture law. (ii) Whether the properties, other than the hotel property, were liable to forfeiture as acquired from unlawful or unexplained sources, and whether the hotel property was entitled to limited protection under the statutory relief provision.

Issue (i): Whether a mere revocation of a detention order under section 11(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA could be equated with a detention order being set aside or quashed for the purpose of excluding the appellant from the ambit of the forfeiture law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme drew a clear distinction between revocation by the same authority and setting aside or quashing by a court of competent jurisdiction. The protective provisos to section 2(2)(b) of the forfeiture statute were held to operate only in the specific situations stated therein, and the Court declined to extend their scope by analogy. Revocation simpliciter under section 11(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA did not remove the appellant from the category of persons to whom the forfeiture law applied.

Conclusion: The revocation order did not exclude the appellant from the application of the forfeiture statute, and the preliminary objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the properties, other than the hotel property, were liable to forfeiture as acquired from unlawful or unexplained sources, and whether the hotel property was entitled to limited protection under the statutory relief provision.

Analysis: The properties stood linked to the detenu, and the appellant failed to show that the investments had come from lawful sources. The income-tax record, including clubbing of income and the settlement findings, supported the conclusion that the assets were acquired from undisclosed or unlawful income. The hotel property was treated differently because a substantial part of the investment was explained, leaving only a limited unexplained amount, which attracted the conditional relief provision rather than absolute forfeiture.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was upheld for the properties covered in the forfeiture schedule, while the hotel property was granted conditional protection subject to payment of the quantified fine.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the core challenge to applicability and merits of forfeiture, but the hotel property received limited statutory relief in lieu of absolute forfeiture.

Ratio Decidendi: A revocation of detention by the detaining authority is not equivalent to judicial setting aside or quashing, and property remains liable to forfeiture where the affected person cannot establish lawful sources of acquisition, subject only to any specific statutory relief for partially explained investment.

---