Forfeiture notice to close relatives is sufficient where lawful acquisition is not proved and no statutory time limit exists.

Notice served on the detenu's wife and brothers under the forfeiture statute was sufficient, because Section 6(1) required notice to the person affected and Section 6(2) applied only where property was shown as held by another person on the noticee's behalf. Absence of notice to the detenu therefore did not vitiate the proceedings against the close relatives. The statute also prescribed no time limit for initiating forfeiture proceedings, so a challenge based on delay failed. As the petitioners did not establish lawful acquisition of the properties, the forfeiture orders were sustained and writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-service of notice on the detenu vitiated forfeiture proceedings against his wife and brothers under the forfeiture statute. (ii) Whether the proceedings were invalid for alleged delay and want of initiation within a reasonable time.

Issue (i): Whether non-service of notice on the detenu vitiated forfeiture proceedings against his wife and brothers under the forfeiture statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between persons to whom the Act applied and other persons holding property on behalf of such persons. Section 6(1) contemplated notice to the person affected, while Section 6(2) required a copy only where the property was shown as held by another person on behalf of the noticee. The petitioners were the detenu's wife and brothers, and therefore fell within the category of close relatives covered by the Act. Since notices had been served on them under Section 6(1), absence of notice to the detenu did not affect the proceedings against them.

Conclusion: Non-service of notice on the detenu did not vitiate the forfeiture proceedings against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were invalid for alleged delay and want of initiation within a reasonable time.

Analysis: The Act prescribed no time limit for initiation of forfeiture proceedings. The burden lay on the persons served with notice to show that the property was not illegally acquired. The concurrent findings of the competent authority and the appellate tribunal were that the petitioners failed to establish lawful acquisition of the properties. In the absence of contrary material, interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not invalid for delay, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The forfeiture orders were sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In forfeiture proceedings under the Act, notice to the close relatives served under the statute is sufficient, and absence of notice to the detenu does not nullify the proceedings where the property stands in the relatives' names and lawful acquisition is not proved.

---