Mandatory notice and hearing safeguards under SAFEMA must be complied with before forfeiture can be sustained.

Forfeiture of property under SAFEMA was held unsustainable where the mandatory notice and hearing safeguards were not followed. Section 6(2) requires service of a copy of the notice on the person in whose name the property stands when the property is alleged to be held on behalf of another, and Section 7(1) requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before forfeiture. Because the property stood in the wife's name and no notice or hearing was given to her, the forfeiture order could not be sustained, and it was set aside in respect of that property.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture order in respect of the said property was sustainable when no notice under Section 6(2) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was served on the person in whose name the property stood.

Analysis: Section 6(2) requires that where a notice specifies property as being held on behalf of the person affected by another person, a copy of the notice must also be served on that other person. Section 7(1) further mandates that before declaring property forfeited, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to the person affected and also to the person through whom the property is held. The record showed that the property stood in the name of the appellant's wife, yet no notice was issued to her and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her before the forfeiture order was passed. The statutory safeguard could not be ignored on the basis that the appellant had allegedly admitted the property to be his or that the matter could be remanded after the defect was pointed out.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was unsustainable for breach of Section 6(2) and the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 7, and was set aside in respect of the said property.

---