https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152019 The third proviso to section 2(2) of SAFEMA was held inapplicable because release of the detenu after lifting of the emergency was not a conscious, voluntary revocation of detention by the appropriate Government; the term "revoked" was construed as requiring intentional application of mind, which was absent in a general release order. The Tribunal also held that the validity of the original detention order could not be reopened in forfeiture proceedings where it had not been challenged in the proper forum, so later attacks based on alleged defects in detention were impermissible. The preliminary objection was rejected and the Act was held applicable to the appellant. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:22:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152019 The third proviso to section 2(2) of SAFEMA was held inapplicable because release of the detenu after lifting of the emergency was not a conscious, voluntary revocation of detention by the appropriate Government; the term "revoked" was construed as requiring intentional application of mind, which was absent in a general release order. The Tribunal also held that the validity of the original detention order could not be reopened in forfeiture proceedings where it had not been challenged in the proper forum, so later attacks based on alleged defects in detention were impermissible. The preliminary objection was rejected and the Act was held applicable to the appellant. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152019