https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154658 Forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMFOPA require the competent authority to record reasons in writing before issuing notice under Section 6(1), and a reasoned record was held sufficient to reject a claim of non-application of mind. The proceedings were not vitiated merely because no separate notice was served on the convict under Section 6(2) when action was taken against the relative. However, the forfeiture order could not stand because the enquiry was not conducted on proper quasi-judicial lines and the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to adduce evidence. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on observance of natural justice and proper evaluation of the Section 8 burden. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154658 Forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMFOPA require the competent authority to record reasons in writing before issuing notice under Section 6(1), and a reasoned record was held sufficient to reject a claim of non-application of mind. The proceedings were not vitiated merely because no separate notice was served on the convict under Section 6(2) when action was taken against the relative. However, the forfeiture order could not stand because the enquiry was not conducted on proper quasi-judicial lines and the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to adduce evidence. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on observance of natural justice and proper evaluation of the Section 8 burden. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154658