Mandatory statutory notice as a jurisdictional prerequisite invalidated forfeiture proceedings under the forfeiture law.

Forfeiture proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act were invalid where the competent authority failed to serve the primary notice required by section 6(1) on the convict. The court treated service of that notice as a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite, because section 6(2) operates only after the statutory notice has been served on the person affected. Non-service was not a mere procedural irregularity cured by lack of prejudice; it deprived the authority of power to continue the proceedings and to forfeit property standing in relatives' names. The impugned orders were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 were vitiated for non-service of notice under section 6(1) on the convict and whether the defect was jurisdictional.

Analysis: Section 6(1) requires the competent authority, on recording reasons to believe that the properties are illegally acquired, to serve notice on the person affected and call upon him to explain the sources of acquisition. Section 6(2) contemplates service of a copy on the relative only where the primary notice has been served on the convict and the property is stated to be held through such relative. The procedural scheme is mandatory because forfeiture has serious civil consequences and the statutory steps must be followed in the manner prescribed. Absence of notice to the convict in relation to property standing in the name of the relatives was treated as a failure of a jurisdictional prerequisite, not a mere irregularity cured by absence of prejudice.

Conclusion: The forfeiture proceedings were invalid for want of compliance with section 6(1), and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded on the ground that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to continue the forfeiture proceedings without first serving the statutory notice on the convict.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a primary notice as a condition precedent to forfeiture proceedings, non-service of that notice deprives the authority of jurisdiction and invalidates the subsequent action.

---