TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the forfeiture of the petitioner's one-half share in the house property could be sustained under the forfeiture law in the absence of any established nexus between the property and the detenu's illegal activity.
Analysis: The Act permits forfeiture of illegally acquired property, but the statutory burden on the affected person under the evidence provision becomes relevant only after the competent authority has material giving rise to a reason to believe that the property is illegally acquired and that there is a connecting link between the property and the detenu or convict. The purpose of the Act is to reach properties of the detenu or convict held in the name of relatives or associates, not to forfeit the independent properties of relatives which are unconnected with the prohibited activity. On the facts, the house property was acquired in 1961, whereas the earliest material suggesting illegal activity of the detenu was of 1967. No connecting link or nexus was shown between the acquisition of the property and any illegal activity of the detenu.
Conclusion: The forfeiture could not be sustained against the petitioner's half share in the house property, and the notice, the competent authority's order, and the appellate order were quashed to that extent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
