https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152016 The proviso to section 68C(2) was confined to persons charged with an offence relating to illicit traffic and did not extend to persons detained under preventive detention law under the 1988 Act. Roopa Rai was treated as a person covered by the forfeiture regime because long cohabitation and her own conduct supported the presumption of marriage, and she also fell within the statutory concept of an associate. On the properties, assets linked to acquisitions in 1953 to 1955 were not proved to be illegally acquired, but properties standing in Roopa Rai's name and those acquired in 1982 were upheld as liable to forfeiture for lack of a lawful source. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:00:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152016 The proviso to section 68C(2) was confined to persons charged with an offence relating to illicit traffic and did not extend to persons detained under preventive detention law under the 1988 Act. Roopa Rai was treated as a person covered by the forfeiture regime because long cohabitation and her own conduct supported the presumption of marriage, and she also fell within the statutory concept of an associate. On the properties, assets linked to acquisitions in 1953 to 1955 were not proved to be illegally acquired, but properties standing in Roopa Rai's name and those acquired in 1982 were upheld as liable to forfeiture for lack of a lawful source. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152016