Emergency detention under COFEPOSA excluded SAFEMA jurisdiction once the order ceased with the Emergency itself.

A COFEPOSA detention order made during the Emergency under Section 12A fell within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA because it operated only for the Emergency period and stood revoked when the Emergency ended. That statutory position excluded the person from SAFEMA's reach, so forfeiture proceedings could not be sustained. The fact that the revocation order referred to Section 11(1) instead of Section 12A did not change the result, and non-service of the detention order further meant there was no effective opportunity to challenge it during its subsistence. SAFEMA jurisdiction was therefore lacking.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order made during the Emergency under Section 12A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and revoked on cessation of the Emergency, fell within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 so as to exclude SAFEMA jurisdiction; and whether the fact that the revocation order referred to Section 11(1) of COFEPOSA, rather than Section 12A, made any difference.

Analysis: Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA extends the Act to persons against whom a COFEPOSA detention order has been made, but the third proviso excludes orders to which Section 12A applies if they are not revoked before expiry of the period for which they could remain in force. The detention order in question was made after the Emergency was proclaimed and thus fell within Section 12A. Such an order, by its own statutory scheme, operated only during the Emergency or for the prescribed period, whichever was shorter, and in this case it stood revoked when the Emergency ended. The fact that the revocation order was expressed under Section 11(1) did not alter the legal position, because the order had already fallen within the first category of the third proviso and stood excluded from SAFEMA once it was revoked on cessation of the Emergency. The absence of service of the detention order also meant that the detenu had no effective opportunity to challenge it during the period of its subsistence.

Conclusion: The detention order was excluded by the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA and the forfeiture proceedings lacked jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The SAFEMA proceedings and the appellate order were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A detention order made under Section 12A of COFEPOSA during the Emergency, which ceases on revocation with the Emergency itself, falls within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA and is outside SAFEMA's jurisdiction.

---