Judgment :- 1. These petitions have been filed to quash proceedings taken against the petitioners under S.6 (i) of the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short SAFEM (FOP) Act) by the Competent Authority under that Act. 2. The father of petitioner in O.P. No. 2770/80, Varadaraja was convicted in C. C. No. 1512/67 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Belguam, Karnataka along with three others, under S.135 (i) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act 1962 and S.126 (H)(2)(b) of the Gold Control Rules read with S.126 P(2)(ii) of the D. I R.1963, for being in possession of 500 tholas of contraband gold worth Rs. 90,000/- concealed in a cavity in Ambassador car KLD 5950 The conviction has been confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka in Crl. R.P. No. 35A/70 on 16-4-1971. Varadaraja has brothers including Raghava and Vedavyasa. The petitioners in O. P. No. 1769/80 are the wives of the three brothers respectively. The petitioner in O.P. No 2769/80 is the minor son of Vedavyasa. The petitioner in O.P. No. 2770 80 is the minor son of Varadaraja. The petitioner in O.P. No. 2771/80 is the minor son of Varadaraja. The petitioner in O. P. No. 2771/80 is the minor son of Raghava. It appears that all the petitioners have certain items of properties standing in their names. The Competent Authority under SAFEM(FOP) Act (respondent in the Original Petitions) issued notices to all these persons under S.6(1) of the Act stating that he has reason to believe that the properties standing in their names are illegally acquired properties within the meaning of S.3(i)(c) of that Act and calling upon them to indicate to him the sources of their income, earnings or assets out of which or by means of which the properties are acquired, the evidence on which they proposed to rely and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why the properties should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government. All of them submitted replies denying that the properties were illegally acquired and also contending that they do not come within the purview of that Act. The Competent Authority considered the explanations and passed order on 16-4-1971 over-ruling the preliminary objection regarding the applicability of the Act. All of them submitted replies denying that the properties were illegally acquired and also contending that they do not come within the purview of that Act. The Competent Authority considered the explanations and passed order on 16-4-1971 over-ruling the preliminary objection regarding the applicability of the Act. In this order it is stated that the contraband gold involved in the criminal case was worth Rs. 90.000/- and the value of the motor car in which the gold was hidden was Rs. 15,000 and thus the total value of the goods was more than Rs. one lakh and hence Varadaraja as well as the petitioners are persons as defined under S.2(2)(a) and 2(2)(c) of that Act. These proceedings are sought to be quashed. 3. SAFEM (FOP) Act has been enacted to enable forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators. The Act applies to persons specified in clauses (a) to (c) of S.2(2) Clause (a) specifies every person who has been convicted under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 or the Customs Act, 1962 of an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees and persons convicted of certain offences under other enactments and persons in respect of whom an order of detention has been passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Clause (c) specifies every person who is a relative of a person referred to in clauses (a) or (b). Explanation (2) indicates who are the relatives mentioned in clause (c). S.3(c) defines "illegally acquired property" in relation to persons to whom the Act applies. Under S.8, in proceedings under the Act, burden of proving that property specified in the notice served under S.6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected. S.4 prohibits holding by persons governed by the Act any illegally acquired property and declares the liability of such property for forfeiture to the Central Government. S.6 requires the competent authority to issue notice of forfeiture and to show cause to the persons affected. S.7 provides for consideration of explanation and other materials, hearing and order to be passed by the authority, declaring the forfeiture of the property. S.12 provides for appeal against this order to the Appellate Tribunal. 4. S.6 requires the competent authority to issue notice of forfeiture and to show cause to the persons affected. S.7 provides for consideration of explanation and other materials, hearing and order to be passed by the authority, declaring the forfeiture of the property. S.12 provides for appeal against this order to the Appellate Tribunal. 4. It is admitted that Varadaraja was convicted under S.135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for an offence of being in possession of contraband gold worth Rs 90,000/-, secreted in an Ambassador car worth Rs. 15,000/-it is also admitted that petitioners in these Original Petitions are relatives of Varadaraja as explained in explanation (2) referred to above. If Varadaraja is a person coming under S.2(2)(a)(i) of SAFEM (FOP) Act, petitioners are persons coming under S.2(2)(c) and all of them will be governed by that Act and the impugned proceedings are valid. 5. S.2(2)(a)(i) requires that a person should have been convicted under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 or the Customs Act, 1962 and that the conviction should be for an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees. If by goods is meant only contraband gold, since its value was only Rs. 90, 000 and therefore did not exceed one lakh of rupees, Varadaraja would not be a person as defined in S.2 (2) (a) (i). If, on the other hand, the value of the car also is to be included as value of the goods, the total value would exceed one lakh of rupees and Varadaraja will have to be treated as a person as defined in S.2 (2) (a) (i). According to the counsel for the petitioners, the value of the car will have to be excluded The Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government would contend that for the purpose of S.2 (2) (a) (i) the value of the car also will have to be computed. 6. "Goods" has been defined in S.2 (22) of the Customs Act as including vessels, air crafts, vehicles, stores, baggage, currency and negotiable instruments, and any other kind of movable property. "Conveyance" is defined in S.2 (9) of the Customs Act as including a vessel, an aircraft and a vehicle. The conviction in the instant case was under S.135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act. "Conveyance" is defined in S.2 (9) of the Customs Act as including a vessel, an aircraft and a vehicle. The conviction in the instant case was under S.135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act. S.135(1) (b) relates to a person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under S.111, S.111 provides for confiscation of improperly imported goods etc., i. e. contraband goods. Punishment is prescribed under sub-clause (i) and (ii), the former prescribing a higher punishment than the latter. Sub-clause (i) deals with case of offence relating to any of the goods to which S.123 applies and the market price whereof exceeds one lakh of rupees, and sub-clause (ii) deals with other cases. Contraband gold is goods to which S.123 applies. It was because the market price of contraband gold did not exceed one lakh rupees, that Varadaraja was convicted under sub-clause (ii) and not sub-clause (i). It is true that a conveyance has been used by him for conveying contraband gold That being so, the conveyance was liable for confiscation under S.115 (2) of the Customs Act, but not under S.111 That does not mean that the conviction was for an offence relating to the car also. The conviction was for an offence relating to gold only, gold being the goods involved in that case. The expression "relation" or "relating to" has been used in several sections of the Customs Act. S. !35 (1) (b) (i) refers to offence relating to any of the goods. S.112 (a) prescribes penalty for any person who, "in relation to any goods", does or omits to do certain acts. S.114 and 116 use the expression "in the case of goods". Thus it can be seen that where ever in the Customs Act the legislature wanted to indicate an offence in connection with certain goods, the expression used is "in relation to", "relating to" or "in case of". A similar expression has been used in S.2(2)(a)(i) of SAFEM (FOP) Act. L e., "an offence in relation to goods". The respondent has no case that there was a conviction in relation to the car also. A similar expression has been used in S.2(2)(a)(i) of SAFEM (FOP) Act. L e., "an offence in relation to goods". The respondent has no case that there was a conviction in relation to the car also. There is no case that an offence under the Customs Act was committed in relation to the car. The car is an Ambassador car registered in Kerala as its number would indicate. Obviously no offence under the Customs Act would have been committed in relation to the car. The charge-sheet in the criminal case would also show that the offence involved was being in possession of contraband gold concealed in this car. The offence involved was not being in possession of a contraband car. Thus it can be seen that in the instant case the conviction was of an offence in relation to contraband gold and not in relation to the car, though the car itself would be liable for confiscation, as already indicated. It does not appear that the Competent Authority was justified in adding up the value of the car to the value of the gold to arrive at the total exceeding one lakh of rupees. 7. Sri. P. V. Madhavan Nambiyar, learned counsel for the respondent, referred to S.2(2)(a) of SAFEM(FOP) Act to contend that there is a difference between sub-clauses (1) and (ii) and that would support the stand taken by the Competent Authority. As already indicated above, sub-clause (i) refers to "an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees". Sub-clause (ii) refers to "an offence, the amount or value involved in which exceeds one lakh of rupees". According to the learned counsel, sub-clause (ii) has been enacted in this manner only to indicate the narrow connotation of sub-clause (ii) and therefore a wider connotation should be ascribed to sub-clause (i) on account of the use of expression "in relation to". I do not think any such distinction can be brought out on a comparison of sub-clauses (i) and (ii). It appears that these expressions have been used in the two sub-clauses, borrowing them from the two Acts referred to in the two sub-clauses; sub-clause (i) refers to the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the Customs Act, 1962. Sub-clause (ii) refers to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1973. It appears that these expressions have been used in the two sub-clauses, borrowing them from the two Acts referred to in the two sub-clauses; sub-clause (i) refers to the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the Customs Act, 1962. Sub-clause (ii) refers to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1973. I have already referred to the expression used in several of the Sections in the Customs Act. S.50, 56 and 57 are the provisions relating to offences and prosecution in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. S.56 states inter alia that if any person contravenes certain provisions of the Act (indicated thereunder) or of any rule,direction or order made thereunder, he shall, upon conviction by a court, be punishable in case of an offence the amount or value involved in which exceeds one lakh of rupees, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to seven years and with fine and in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. It has to be seen that the expression used in S.56(1 )(i) of this Act has almost been copied in S.2(2)(a)(ii) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act. This explains why different expressions are adopted in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of S.2(2)(a) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act. Their use will not bring out any distinction as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. Different expressions are used only to adopt the expressions used in the respective Act referred to. 8. Explanation.) to S.2 of the SAFEM(FOP) Act states that the value of any goods in relation to which a person has been convicted of an offence shall be the wholesale price of the goods in the ordinary course of trade in India as on the date of the commission of the offence. The emphasis "on price in India" is significant. That would indicate that the goods referred to in Explanation.) must be of foreign origin. It is not the price in the land of origin which has to be taken into consideration, but the price in India which has to be taken into consideration. The emphasis "on price in India" is significant. That would indicate that the goods referred to in Explanation.) must be of foreign origin. It is not the price in the land of origin which has to be taken into consideration, but the price in India which has to be taken into consideration. This would also show that the "goods" referred to in Explanation.) are goods, the possession of which is rendered illegal under the provisions of the Customs Act, and not any conveyance used for conveying those goods. The goods referred to in Explanation.) is the same as the goods referred to in S.2(2)(a)(i) and both must have the same connotation, that is goods of foreign origin with reference to which an offence under the Customs Act had been committed. It has to be noticed that there is no provision in the Customs Act stating that an offence could be committed in relation to a conveyance, which is not of foreign origin but is merely used for conveying contraband article of foreign origin. The appointed authority has clearly committed an error of law apparent on the face of record in holding that the value of the car must be added to the value of the gold to arrive at the total for the purpose of seeing whether the goods are of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees The offence involed in this case does not fall within the confines of S 2(2)(a)(i) of the Act. That being so, neither the convicted person nor his relatives would be "persons" for the purpose of S 2 of the SAFEM (FOP) Act. In the result, proceedings taken against the petitioners by the respondent are quashed. The Original Petitions are allowed but under the circumstances without costs. Allowed.