Unexplained delay in forfeiture proceedings can vitiate action even without a statutory limitation period.

Proceedings for forfeiture of property under SAFEMA must be initiated within a reasonable time even where no express limitation period is prescribed. Mere lapse of time is not automatically fatal, but inordinate unexplained delay can render the action unsustainable, particularly where it prejudices the affected person's ability to explain the source of acquisition of the properties. As more than seven years passed after receipt of the relevant report before reasons were recorded and notice issued, and no justification was shown, the forfeiture action was treated as vitiated by delay and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for forfeiture of property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 could be sustained when initiated after an inordinate and unexplained delay, despite the absence of an express time limit.

Analysis: The delay in starting forfeiture action was examined against the settled principle that absence of a statutory limitation period does not authorise proceedings to be initiated after any length of time. A mere lapse of time is not by itself fatal, but inordinate delay without explanation may render the action unsustainable, especially where it places the person proceeded against at a disadvantage in explaining the source of acquisition of the properties. On the facts, more than seven years had elapsed after receipt of the relevant report before reasons were recorded and notice was issued, and no justification for the delay was shown.

Conclusion: The forfeiture proceedings were held to be vitiated by inordinate and unjustified delay and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where a forfeiture statute prescribes no express time limit, proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time, and inordinate unexplained delay that prejudices the affected person renders the action unsustainable.

---