SMT. KESAR DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SMT. KESAR DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Detention order cannot be challenged collaterally during forfeiture proceedings if not previously challenged; competent authority need not show link between detenu's illegally acquired money and property when relationship is direct or close; burden is on person affected to prove property is not illegally acquired; notice issued fully compliant with statutory requirements; appellant failed to establish independent income.

Parties
Appellant: SMT. KESAR DEVI; Respondents: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
SAFEMA, COFEPOSA, Burden of Proof, Detention Order, Illegally Acquired Property
Forfeiture of Property Preventive Detention Administrative Law SAFEMA COFEPOSA Burden of Proof Detention Order Illegally Acquired Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SMT. KESAR DEVI

Appellant

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention order under COFEPOSA can be assailed while challenging forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA
  2. 2 Whether competent authority must establish link or nexus between alleged illegally acquired money of detenu and property forfeited
  3. 3 Whether burden of proof lies on person affected to show property is not illegally acquired

Ratio Decidendi

Detention order cannot be challenged collaterally during forfeiture proceedings if not previously challenged; competent authority need not show link between detenu's illegally acquired money and property when relationship is direct or close; burden is on person affected to prove property is not illegally acquired; notice issued fully compliant with statutory requirements; appellant failed to establish independent income.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; forfeiture of property as ordered by competent authority and upheld by appellate tribunal stands.