Preventive detention and forfeiture law fail when detention grounds are not contemporaneous and the underlying order is revoked.

Forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA depend on a valid, subsisting detention order under COFEPOSA; where the detention order has been revoked, the statutory foundation for forfeiture disappears and the proceedings cannot stand. Preventive detention also requires grounds of detention to exist and be formulated contemporaneously with the order; draft or non-contemporaneous materials are insufficient. On the stated facts, the detention orders were held invalid for breach of Article 22(5), and the consequential forfeiture notices were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 could be sustained when the underlying detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 had been revoked or were otherwise invalid. (ii) Whether the detention orders were vitiated because the grounds of detention were not in existence and were not formulated contemporaneously with the orders, in breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 could be sustained when the underlying detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 had been revoked or were otherwise invalid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme applies only where there is a valid detention order under the preventive detention law and that order has not been set aside by a competent court. A revocation by the Government was treated as having the same practical effect as quashing in writ jurisdiction, because the consequence is cancellation of the detention order. On that footing, where the detention orders stood revoked, the foundation for initiating action under the forfeiture law disappeared.

Conclusion: The forfeiture proceedings were unsustainable and were liable to be quashed insofar as they rested on revoked detention orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention orders were vitiated because the grounds of detention were not in existence and were not formulated contemporaneously with the orders, in breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Preventive detention must be supported by grounds that exist at the time the order is made and are prepared contemporaneously. The record did not show that the grounds of detention had been formulated when the orders were passed; at best there were draft materials, which was insufficient. Such non-compliance with the constitutional requirement rendered the detention orders invalid and unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The detention orders were bad in law for want of contemporaneous grounds of detention.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on both grounds, and the preventive detention orders as well as the consequential forfeiture notices were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA cannot stand without a valid subsisting detention order under COFEPOSA, and a preventive detention order is invalid if the grounds of detention were not in existence and formulated contemporaneously when the order was made.

---