JUDGMENT 1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are aggrieved against the action taken under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (herein after called as "the Act"). 2. The following are the facts in common which led the petitioners to file these writ petitions. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No. 16342 of 2000 is the husband and the petitioners in other two writ petitions are his wives. He suffered an order of detention under COFEPOSA for a period of one year from 22.6.1984. Consequently, a notice under Section 6(1) of the said Act was issued to him on 18.2.1986 in respect of one property only in which he was having only 1/6th share. On 30.3.1986, a reply was given by him stating that it is an ancestral property and therefore not liable to be forfeited. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.16343 of 2000 was also served with a notice under Section 6(1) on the same day mentioning 24 cents of land with a building as liable for forfeiture. The said two notices dated 18.2.1986 sent to the husband K.P.Abdul Majeed and his wife P.K.Umaiba were pending adjudication before the competent authority. While so, on 29.11.1990 three separate notices under Section 6(1) were issued on all the petitioners. In respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.16343 of 2000 five more properties were sought to be forfeited. In respect of the petitioner in W.P.No. 16341 of 2000 two properties said to be jointly owned by her along with her husband were sought to be forfeited. In respect of the other petitioner viz., A.P.Abdul Majeed 13 more properties were sough to be forfeited. Out of the three notices issued on 29.11.1990, two were titled as supplementary notices except the one sent on the petitioner in W.P.No. 16341 of 2000. 5. On 20.6.1996, the competent authority passed a common order forfeiting certain properties and leaving certain properties from the proceedings. Aggrieved against the composite order passed by the competent authority, the petitioners filed separate appeals to the Tribunal viz., the first respondent herein. On 19.5.2000 the Tribunal dismissed all the three appeals. Thus aggrieved against the same the present writ petitions were filed. 6. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:- The petitioner is a person as per the definition of Section 2(a) of the Act. On 19.5.2000 the Tribunal dismissed all the three appeals. Thus aggrieved against the same the present writ petitions were filed. 6. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:- The petitioner is a person as per the definition of Section 2(a) of the Act. The notice under Section 6(1) was issued on 18.2.1986 after receiving the letter from the Government of Kerala where he was detained under COFEPOSA. The supplementary notice dated 29.11.1990 was issued after receiving the details from the Inspector of the second respondent Office at Calicut vide his report dated 5.11.1990. In the instant case, the relevant details submitted by the competent authority are borne out by records. All those information and materials need not be stated in the 6(1) notice and it is enough if the competent authority has sufficient information or materials available with him to arrive at a reasonable belief. Disclosure of such sources of information is legally prohibited. The details of information and materials which are not prohibited alone can be provided to the petitioner. This has been meticulously stated in both the notices. In W.P.Nos. 8876 and 8877 of 2000 the petitioner has raised the very same ground that no reasons were recorded under Section 6(1) notice. This Court by an order dated 19.8.2010 rejected the said contention by holding that the competent authority has clearly recorded the reasons for his belief. The reasons recorded in writing means that it is enough if the competent authority clearly states in his notice that the petitioner is a person and he has acquired properties and such acquisition of properties is a result of the earnings from the smuggling activities and consequently those earnings are nothing but illegal sources of income. Even though the second notice was termed as supplementary it is an independent notice in respect of the property referred in the said notice. Further regarding notice dated 18.2.1986 action was dropped. Section 6(1) notices can be issued any time whenever illegally acquired properties are detected. 7. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.B.Kumar appearing for the petitioners submitted as follows:- The reasons recorded in writing under Section 6(1) notices as regards the wives is not valid as the notices have not expressly stated that the money for the acquisition of the properties by them have flown from the detenu viz., K.P.Abdul Majeed. 7. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.B.Kumar appearing for the petitioners submitted as follows:- The reasons recorded in writing under Section 6(1) notices as regards the wives is not valid as the notices have not expressly stated that the money for the acquisition of the properties by them have flown from the detenu viz., K.P.Abdul Majeed. A valid notice under Section 6(1) is a condition precedent for initiation of proceedings. Therefore, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case. 7.1. The reasons recorded in writing for the issue of notice under Section 6(1) does not satisfy the requirement of law. It merely says that husband has been indulging in smuggling activities and therefore the investment has emanated from illegal source. This reasoning is wholly insufficient. The value of the property and the known source of income and earning cannot be the subject matter of speculation and there must be concrete material. It must be further shown that the relatives viz. the wives herein have no independent income and that the money has come from the detenu to purchase the property. The non-applicable words in the notice under Section 6(1) have not been deleted. This shows non-application of mind. 7.2 The orders passed by the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice. The competent authority has relied upon a statement said to have been given by the detenu on 6. 2.1984 for negativing the claim of the detenu that the properties were purchased out of the remittances through banking channel from Dubai and that the properties were purchased out of that money. The said statement dated 6.2.1984 was not communicated to the petitioners. The Tribunal has also relied upon such uncommunicated statement to reject the claim of the petitioner. Thus, it violates the principles of natural justice. 7.3. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 2179 (Attorney General for India Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas and Others) to contend that the independently acquired properties belonging to the relatives of the detenu cannot be proceed against. He relied on the decision reported in 2003 (7) SCC 436 (Fathima Amin Vs. Union of India) to substantiate his contention in respect of the validity of the notice. Amratlal Prajivandas and Others) to contend that the independently acquired properties belonging to the relatives of the detenu cannot be proceed against. He relied on the decision reported in 2003 (7) SCC 436 (Fathima Amin Vs. Union of India) to substantiate his contention in respect of the validity of the notice. The learned Senior Counsel urged that in the absence of any allegation that a link or nexus is existing between the property sought to be forfeited and the illegally acquired money of the detenu, the proceedings cannot be held valid. 7.4. He further relied on the decision reported in 2007 (2) SCC 510 ( PP Abdulla Vs. Competent Authority) to contend that the reasons recorded in writing must be produced before the Court to enable the court to assess its validity. He also relied on the decision reported in 2008 (14 ) SCC 186 (Aslam Mohammed Merchant Vs. Competent Authority) to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally settled the apparent differing view expressed in Fathima Amin case and Kesar Devi Case reported in ( 2003 (7) SCC 427 ). 7.5. He relied on the decision reported in 2011 (6) MLJ 661 (R.Ramakrishnan Vs Tribunal) to contend that the reason recorded in the notice did not satisfy the requirement of law as link or nexus has not been mentioned which is essential and is the only fact which would empower the competent authority to invoke Section 6(1). He relied on the above decision further to contend that there must be an allegation that the property was acquired by the relative from and out of illegally acquired funds of the detenu. 8. In respect of the writ petition in W.P.No. 16343 of 2000 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted as follows:- Section 6(1) notice issued on the petitioner had mentioned only one property by saying that the source of investment is not known and as the husband of the petitioner herein was indulging in smuggling activities and that it had to be considered that the funds for the investment had emanated from illegal sources. Such reasons are wholly invalid and it amounts to holding a rowing enquiries which are not permitted in law. Even in respect of notice dated 29.11.1990 issued to the petitioner herein, it was not mentioned that the funds for acquisition had flown from the detenu. 9. Such reasons are wholly invalid and it amounts to holding a rowing enquiries which are not permitted in law. Even in respect of notice dated 29.11.1990 issued to the petitioner herein, it was not mentioned that the funds for acquisition had flown from the detenu. 9. With regard to the writ petition in W.P.No. 16341 of 2000 the learned Senior Counsel further submitted as follows:- Section 6(1) notice mentioned two properties by stating that the source of such investment was not known and the husband of the petitioner herein had been indulging in smuggling activities and therefore it has to be considered that the investment had emanated from illegal source. Such reasoning is invalid. It is not alleged that the properties are the benami properties of the detenu. 10. In respect of W.P.No. 16342 of 2000, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted as follows:- The petitioner was a detenu under the COFEPOSA Act and the first notice under Section 6(1) was issued to him on 18.2.1986. The said notice mentioned a property wherein the detenu was having one sixth share only. The said notice was invalid since no value of the property was given therein and it did not mention anything about his earnings. A supplementary notice was issued on 29.11.1990 wherein 13 properties were mentioned. This notice is also invalid as it does not satisfy the requirement of law and it does not mention anything about the income and earnings of the petitioner. Thus the law laid down in Aslam Mohammed Case and R.Ramakrishnan case has been violated. The writ petitioners as appellants before the Tribunal sought to lead additional evidence in the form of a Certificate from the employer of K.P.Abdul Majeed at Dubai to prove that they had indeed made remittances to the NRI account. The Tribunal did not consider the same. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1957 SC 882 (Union of India Vs. T.R.Varma) and AIR 1999 SC 2169 (Sahi Ram Vs. Avtar Singh and Others) 11. Per contra, Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted as follows:- 11.1. The validity of Section 6(1) notice was never challenged either before the competent authority or before the appellate authority. It is not the case of the petitioners that no reasons were recorded but the reasons recorded were not sufficient. Avtar Singh and Others) 11. Per contra, Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted as follows:- 11.1. The validity of Section 6(1) notice was never challenged either before the competent authority or before the appellate authority. It is not the case of the petitioners that no reasons were recorded but the reasons recorded were not sufficient. The value of the properties, known sources of income of the relative/holder of the properties and other information were considered and stated in the notice. Thus, all the requirements of law were considered and followed while issuing notice under Section 6(1) of the said Act. It is an admitted case of the wives before the authorities and also in their affidavit filed before this Court that money has flown from the detenu/husband and the properties were not purchased out of their independent earnings. The reasons recorded are subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. Sufficiency of reasons recorded can not be gone into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11.2 The connecting link is required only in cases where the properties stood in the name of the wives individually acquired from their individual income as found in the decision reported in 1994 (5) SCC 54 (Attorney General for India Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas). In the present case all the properties are in the joint name of the detenu and his wives. Kesar Devi case reported in 2003 (7) SCC 427 is in conformation with Attorney General case. The decisions relied on by the petitioners reported in 2003 (7) SCC 436 (Fatima Mohd. Amin Vs. Union of India); 2007 (2) SCC 510 (P.P. Abdulla and Another vs. Competent Authority and Others); are not applicable to the present case as they are distinguishable on facts. 11.3 The first notice was issued on 18.2.1986 to K.P. Abdul Majeed and his wife Umaiba and no notice was issued to the other wife Rukhiya as she was not married at that time. The reply submitted by the petitioners to the first notice was accepted and the properties thereunder were released. The second notices were issued on 21.11.1990 to all the petitioners. The properties mentioned in the second notice were different from first notice and they were admittedly purchased, after issuance of first notice, between 1986 to 1989. The reply submitted by the petitioners to the first notice was accepted and the properties thereunder were released. The second notices were issued on 21.11.1990 to all the petitioners. The properties mentioned in the second notice were different from first notice and they were admittedly purchased, after issuance of first notice, between 1986 to 1989. In the second notice issued to Abdul Majeed and Umaiba it was mentioned as supplementary notice. But no such mention was made in the notice issued to Rukhiya. This was done only to remind them that there was a prior notice in respect of those two persons. The caption "supplementary" cannot make the second notice supplement to the first notice in the absence of any such purpose of supplementing the first notice. Nature of notice cannot be decided by its nomenclature and only the contents of the documents are relevant. The second notice is independent notice, in respect of other properties with separate reasons recorded. 11.4 The detenu has filed wealth tax and income tax returns collectively for the first time in 1990 for the assessment year 1989-90 and they were accepted by the ITO in the year 1992. Though the wealth and income have been shown in those returns, there was no evidence for licit or legal source of such income or wealth. Thus it undoubtedly raise a doubt about the legal source of funds wherefrom the aforesaid properties were acquired at the relevant time. The remittances in NRE Account only shows mode of transaction. But the petitioners have not proved the licit or legal source of such money, especially when the detenu's passport shows that during the period of remittances he was very much in India and in the wealth tax assessment order it is stated that the detenu was in lodging business and he was residing in India during the relevant period. In this aspect the decision reported in 2007 (6) SCC 21 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.Mohanakala) is relied on to contend that mere remittance from a foreign country through banking channels is not sufficient to explain its genuineness. 11.5 The detenu was a known smuggler. Many detention orders were clamped against him for his repeated indulging in smuggling activities during 1984 to 2005. The money earned by violation of law in India are transmitted out through hawala transaction and sent back by way of NRE account. 11.5 The detenu was a known smuggler. Many detention orders were clamped against him for his repeated indulging in smuggling activities during 1984 to 2005. The money earned by violation of law in India are transmitted out through hawala transaction and sent back by way of NRE account. The detenu must prove his legal source. Section 21 of the said Act contemplates that the findings rendered under the other laws are not conclusive for proceeding under SAFEMA. Therefore, the acceptance of returns by the Income or Wealth Tax Assessing Officer has no relevance as held by the Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in 2011 (3) CTC 345 (The Competent Authority Vs. Hameed Abdul Kader and Another). 11.6. The proceedings under SAFEMA were in consequences of detention under COFEPOSA. The petitioners are well aware of that. The grounds of detention clearly referred about the supply of copy of the statement to the detenu. He made voluntary statement before the customs authorities and the same remained unretracted. Since copies were already given to him under COFEPOSA proceedings, there is no need to give one more copy to him. The petitioner did not make any request to the competent authority seeking for supply of such copy. Therefore, it is not a case of refusal. The principles of natural justice have been complied with in every stage of the proceedings and due opportunities were given to the petitioners. The competent authority relied on two passports produced by the detenue/ petitioner to come to such conclusion. The confession statements have been referred to by the competent authority only after making his conclusion on foreign money transaction. Thus, even without referring to the confession statement, the competent authority had already arrived at the conclusion. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authority has relied on the statement of the detenu to come to such conclusion. The petitioner has to show the nature of the prejudice caused to him by not supplying the said statement. The petitioners failed to show the nature of the prejudice. 11.7. The decision reported in AIR 1996 (SC) 1669 (State Bank of Patiala Vs. The petitioner has to show the nature of the prejudice caused to him by not supplying the said statement. The petitioners failed to show the nature of the prejudice. 11.7. The decision reported in AIR 1996 (SC) 1669 (State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K.Sharma ) is relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents to contend that mere non-supply of documents will not amount to violation of principles of natural justice where there is substantial compliance of the same and where no prejudice is caused on account of it. 11.8. He further contends that the judgment made in Kesar Devi case confirms and in consonance with the Attorney General case. The other three subsequent decisions viz., Fatima Mohd Amin; P.P.Abdulla; Aslam Md. cases are rendered by the Benches comprised of lesser number of Judges. The law laid by the Constitution Bench at paragraph 44 that the burden or disproving the connecting link between those properties in the name of the relative and the detenu is upon the relative/ associate still holds the field. The nexus need not be established where the property concerned is that of the detenu himself. The said nexus is required to be established only when the property is held benami in the name of any other person or relative. Therefore, the decision made in Attorney General case alone is to be applied and followed in these cases. 12. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 13. Going by the pleadings and submissions made by the respective parties the following issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1976 is valid and sustainable in law ? 2. Whether the proceedings are vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice ? 3. Whether the composite order passed by the competent authority under Section 7(1) of the above said Act was validly made ? 4. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal passed under Section 12 of the said Act needs any interference in this proceedings ? 14. Before answering the above issues let me first consider the Scheme of the said Act. 14.1 Section 2 of the said Act deals with its Application. 4. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal passed under Section 12 of the said Act needs any interference in this proceedings ? 14. Before answering the above issues let me first consider the Scheme of the said Act. 14.1 Section 2 of the said Act deals with its Application. As per the said provision, the said Act shall apply to "every person" who has been convicted under the Customs Act of an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh rupees ; or convicted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for an offence involving the amount exceeding one lakh rupees and "every person" in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, provided that such detention order has not been revoked or set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. "every person" who is a relative of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 2(2); "every associate" of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 2 (2); any holder of any property which was previously held by a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b). 14.2. Explanation 2 to Section 2 defines the term "relative". Explanation 3 defines the term "associate". 14.3. 14.2. Explanation 2 to Section 2 defines the term "relative". Explanation 3 defines the term "associate". 14.3. Section 3 (1)(c) defines the term "the illegally acquired property" as follows:- "(i) any property acquired by such person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets derived or obtained from or attributable to any activity prohibited by or under any law for the time being in force relating to any matter in respect of which Parliament has power to make laws; or (ii) any property acquired by such person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets in respect of which any such law has been contravened; or (iii) any property acquired by such person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets the source of which cannot be proved and which cannot be shown to be attributable to any act or thing done in respect of any matter in relation to which Parliament has no power to make laws ; or (iv) any property acquired by such person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for a consideration, or by any means, wholly or partly traceable to any property referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) or the income or earnings from such property; and includes - A) any property held by such person which would have been, in relation to any previous thereof, illegally acquired property under this clause if such previous holder had not ceased to hold it, unless such person or any other person who held the property at any time after such previous holder or, where there are two or more such previous holders, the last of such previous holders is or was a transferee in good faith for adequate consideration; B) any property acquired by such person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for a consideration, or by any means, wholly or partly traceable to any property falling under item (A), or the income or earnings therefrom;" 14.4. Section 6 deals with the issue of notice of forfeiture which reads as follows:- "6. Section 6 deals with the issue of notice of forfeiture which reads as follows:- "6. Notice of forfeiture (1) If, having regard to the value of the properties held by any person to whom this Act applies, either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, his known sources of income, earnings or assets any other information or material available to it as a result of action taken under section 18 or otherwise, the competent authority has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing) that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired properties, it may serve a notice upon such person (hereinafter referred to as the person affected) calling upon him within such time as may be specified in the notice, which shall not be ordinarily less than thirty days, to indicate the sources of his income, earnings, or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired such property, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties, as the case may be, should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under this Act. (2) Where a notice under sub-section (1) to any person specifies any property as being held on behalf of such person by any other person, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon such other person. 14.5. Section 7 deals with forfeiture of property by the competent authority. Section 8 deals with burden of proof which is extracted hereunder:- "8. Burden of proof :- In any proceedings under this Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected. " 14.6. Section 12 deals with Constitution of Appellate Tribunal and its powers. Burden of proof :- In any proceedings under this Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected. " 14.6. Section 12 deals with Constitution of Appellate Tribunal and its powers. Section 15 contemplates that the competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal shall have the powers of Civil Court in respect of the following matters: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court of office; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witness or documents; (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. 14.7. Section 18 empowers the competent authority to conduct any inquiry or investigation or survey in respect of any person, place, property, assets, documents, books of account or any other relevant matters for the purposes of any proceedings under the said Act or any initiation of any such proceedings. 15. From the facts and circumstances as placed by both the parties, there is no dispute to the fact that this Act shall apply to the writ petitioners herein since one of the writ petitioners is the husband who was a detenu under the COFEPOSA and other two writ petitioners are admittedly his wives coming within the definition of "relative" as found under Explanation 2 of Section 2(2) of the said Act. The dispute in all the three writ petitions is in respect of terming the subject matter properties as "illegally acquired properties" and as against the procedure adopted by the competent authority in forfeituring those properties from the hands of the petitioners. 16. Section 6 of the said Act empowers the competent authority to serve a notice upon a person whom he has reason to believe "that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired by him and to call upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earnings or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired such property. Thus, from a careful reading of Section 6, it could be seen that it is only a show cause notice issued to a person to explain the sources of his income etc., with evidence on which such person relies and other relevant information and particulars and also to show cause as to why such properties should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under this Act. 17. Thus, it is clear that for issuing notice under Section 6(1), the competent authority need not come to a conclusion that the properties under the said notice are illegally acquired properties. Such conclusion is warranted only after hearing the person to whom Section 6(1) notice is issued. But what is necessary is that the competent authority must have reason to believe that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired properties, for the purpose of issuing notice under Section 6(1). 18. In this case Section 6(1) notices were issued on two occasions, firstly on 18.2.1986 on the detenu who is the petitioner in W.P.No. 16342 of 2000 and the first wife who is the petitioner in W.P.No. 16343 of 2000. However, the fact remains that the properties mentioned in the Schedule therein were subsequently dropped by the competent authority while passing the composite order on 20.6.1996. Thus insofar as the properties referred to under 18.2.1996 notices are concerned, the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 16343 and 16342 of 2000 have no grievance. 19. Again, section 6(1) notice was issued to all the three petitioners on 29.11.1990. Insofar as the petitioners Abdul Majeed and Umaiba are concerned, Section 6(1) notice was termed as supplementary. However insofar as the other wife viz., Rukhiya is concerned, only one notice was issued to her on 29.11.1990 mentioning two properties under the schedule. 20. The contentions of the petitioners is that the notice dated 29.11.1990 does not satisfy the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 6(1) of the said Act. The crux of the contention of petitioners are as follows:- a) The competent authority did not expressly state that the money for acquisition of the properties have flown from the detenu. b) The reasoning stated in the said notice, that husband has been indulging in smuggling activities and therefore the investment has emanated from illegal source, is insufficient. c) It must state that wives have no independent income. b) The reasoning stated in the said notice, that husband has been indulging in smuggling activities and therefore the investment has emanated from illegal source, is insufficient. c) It must state that wives have no independent income. d) A nexus must be shown between the detenu and the illegally acquired property. 21. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners strongly relied on the following decisions :- 1. 2003 (7) SCC 436 (Fatima Mohd. Amin Vs. Union of India) 2. 2007 (2) SCC 510 (P.P. Abdulla and Another vs. Competent Authority and Others) 3. 2008 (14) SCC 186 (Aslam Mohammed Merchant Vs. Competent Authority) 4. 2011 (11) MLJ 661 (R.Ramakrishnan Vs Tribunal) 22. He emphasised more on the decision made in the case of Aslam Mohammed Merchant Vs. Competent Authority ( 2008 (14) SCC 186 ). A perusal of the facts of that case before the Apex Court would show that it has arisen under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 where similar provisions for forfeiture of property is made under Section 68-I. Similar to Section 6(1) of SAFEMA, 68 H of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 contemplates issuance of notice of forfeiture of the property. The Apex Court found that relevant provisions of SAFEMA and NDPS are in pari materia. The Apex Court considered what are all the statutory requirements for initiating a valid proceeding under the above said Act and observed at paragraphs 25 to 30 as follows:- "25. The core question which, therefore, arises for consideration is what are the statutory requirements for initiating a valid proceeding. INTERPRETATION 26. Chapter VA contains stringent provisions. It provides for forfeiture of property. Such property, however, as the heading of the Chapter shows, must be derived from or used in illicit traffic. Illegally acquired property in relation to any person to whom the chapter applies would mean only such property which was acquired wholly or partly out of or by means of any income attributable to the contravention of any provision of the Act or for a consideration wholly or partly traceable to any property referred to in sub-clause (i) or the income or earning from property. 27. It is, therefore, evident that the property which is sought to be forfeited must be the one which has a direct nexus with the income etc. 27. It is, therefore, evident that the property which is sought to be forfeited must be the one which has a direct nexus with the income etc. derived by way of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any property acquired therefrom. What is meant by identification of such property having regard to the definition of `identifying' is, that the property was derived from or used in the illicit traffic. 28. The property having regard to the said definition would include any of the properties described therein and deeds of instruments evidencing interest therein derived from or used in the illicit traffic. 29. In the aforementioned context, the word "person" also assumes importance which leads to determining the nature, source, disposition, movement, title or ownership of the property. Direction to forfeiture of a property is in two parts. Firstly, it has to be identified in terms of Section 68-F of the Act. For the said purpose, a satisfaction must be arrived at by the authority specified therein to the effect that the person concerned had been holding any illegally acquired property. Secondly, on the basis of such information, he is entitled to take steps for tracing and identifying the property. The Authority is also entitled to seize or freeze such a property. 30. Before, however, the actual order of forfeiture of such illegally acquired property is passed, issuance of a notice to show cause is essential so as to fulfill the requirements of natural justice. Such a notice is to be issued by the Authority having regard to: (i) The value of the property held by the person concerned, (ii) His known source of income, earning or assets, (iii) Any other information or material made available as a result of a report from any officer making an investigation under Section 68-E of the Act or otherwise. When the aforementioned conditions are satisfied, the competent authority would be entitled to issue a show cause notice, if he has reason to believe, wherefore reasons are to be recorded in writing that the properties are illegally acquired properties. " 23. A careful perusal of the above said decision would show that the earlier decisions of the Apex Court viz, Attorney General case, Fatima Mohd. Amin case, Kesar Devi case and P.P.Abdulla case were all considered apart from other decisions. " 23. A careful perusal of the above said decision would show that the earlier decisions of the Apex Court viz, Attorney General case, Fatima Mohd. Amin case, Kesar Devi case and P.P.Abdulla case were all considered apart from other decisions. Thus the Apex Court in the above said decision further considered with regard to the burden of proof on the part of the person against whom such notice was issued and found that only in a case where a valid proceeding has been initiated, the burden of proof that any property specified in the notice is not illegally acquired property, would be on the "person" affected. At paragraphs 31, 32 the Apex Court held as follows:- "31. Once the notice to show cause is found to be satisfying the statutory requirements which are condition precedent therefor, a valid proceeding can be said to have been initiated for forfeiture of the property. Only in a case where a valid proceeding has been initiated, the burden of proof that any property specified in the notice is not illegally acquired property, would be on the `person' affected. 32. Before, however, an order of forfeiture can be passed, the Competent Authority must not only comply with the principles of natural justice, he is also required to apply his mind on the materials brought before him. It is also necessary that a finding that all or any of the properties in question were illegally acquired properties is recorded ." 24. Further, while dealing with the statutory elements viz., recording of reasons, the Apex Court observed at paragraphs 38 to 41 as follows:- "38. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that a proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority is imperative before a show cause notice is issued. 39. Section 68-H of the Act provides for two statutory requirements on the part of the authority viz: (i) he has to form an opinion in regard to his `reason to believe'; and (ii) he must record reasons therefor. 40. Both the statutory elements, namely, `reason to believe' and `recording of reasons' must be premised on the materials produced before him. Such materials must have been gathered during the investigation carried out in terms of Section 68-E or otherwise. Indisputably therefore, he must have some materials before him. 40. Both the statutory elements, namely, `reason to believe' and `recording of reasons' must be premised on the materials produced before him. Such materials must have been gathered during the investigation carried out in terms of Section 68-E or otherwise. Indisputably therefore, he must have some materials before him. If no such material had been placed before him, he cannot initiate a proceeding. He cannot issue a show cause notice on his own ipse dixit. A roving enquiry is not contemplated under the said Act as properties sought to be forfeited must have a direct nexus with the properties illegally acquired. 41. It is now a trite law that whenever a statute provides for `reason to believe', either the reasons should appear on the face of the notice or they must be available on the materials which had been placed before him." To come to such conclusion, the Apex Court has found that the show cause notices issued therein did not contain any reason so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 68H (1) of the NDPS Act. 25. From the perusal of the above decision of the Apex Court it could be seen that what is required under Section 6(1) notice is that the property which is sought to be forfeited must be the one which has a direct nexus with the income etc., derived by way of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any property acquired therefrom. 26. Here in this case, notice dated 29.11.1990 was issued on the three petitioners out of which two notices were termed as supplementary notices. This nomenclature is objected to by the petitioner by contending that no such notice can be issued. It is not in dispute that there is no bar in issuing successive notices under Section 6(1) of the said Act. Therefore, whether notice is issued under a caption "notice" or "supplementary" , the fact remains that all the notices were issued only under Section 6(1) of the said Act and therefore, the contention of the petitioners on this aspect cannot be sustained. So long as the notice in dispute is issued under Section 6(1) and satisfies the mandatory requirements of law, the nomenclature has no relevance in these kind of matters. 27. So long as the notice in dispute is issued under Section 6(1) and satisfies the mandatory requirements of law, the nomenclature has no relevance in these kind of matters. 27. When the notices dated 29.11.1990 are perused in all the three cases, the reasons recorded for issue of such notice is separately annexed with the said notice. In sofar as the detenu viz., the petitioner in W.P.No.16342 of 2000 is concerned the following are the reasons recorded by the competent authority. "Shri Kundirikkal Parambil Abdul Majeed was a detenu under the COFEPOSA Act and thus a person within the meaning of section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976. Accordingly, proceedings under the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976 were initiated in his case on 18.2.1986 by issue of notice under Section 6(1) of the Act. However, on further enquiries, it is seen that Shri Kundirikkal Parambil Abdul Majeed has acquired , in addition to the properties already covered by notice under Section 6(1) dated 18.2.1986, the following properties in his own name or jointly with his relatives:- (i) 48 Cents of garden land in R.S.21-9-183/185 pt. in Panniyankara Amsom Desom purchased as per document No. 2306/86 dt. 25.8.86 for Rs. 38,400/- - Own Name (ii) 48 cents of garden land in R.S.21-9-183/184/185 in Panniyankara Amsom Desom purchased as per document No. 2768/86 dt. 13.6.86 for Rs. 43,200/- - do- (iii) 35 cents of Garden land inR.S.21-26-699 in Paniyankara Amsom Desom purchased as per document No.1486/86 dt. 27-5-86 for Rs.35,000/- - do- (iv) 793/8 cents of garden land in R.S.59-1 in Panniyankara Amsom Desom purchased asper document No. 562/89 dt. 23-2-89 forRs.97,500/- Jointly held by the AP with his wife Smt. Umaiba. (v) Business assets lodging house- Everest Lodge Kallai, purchased as per document No.2884/89 dt. 27-10-88 (Rs.1,70,000) document No.3183 dt. 5.12.88 (Rs.3,40,000), document No.15/89 - dt. 2.1.89 (Rs.2,55,000), including cost of stamp paper etc., Own Name vi) 19.80 cents of land in R.S.No.5-2 in Vengeri Jointly held Amsom, Calicut, purchased as per document by the AP No. 2642/87 dt. 16-10-87 for Rs. 47,520/- with his Jointly held by the AP with his wife Smt. Umaiba. (vii) 13.05 cents of land in R.S.No.5-2 in Vengeri Amsom, Calicut, purchased as per document No. 2677 dt. 21-10-87 for Rs. 16-10-87 for Rs. 47,520/- with his Jointly held by the AP with his wife Smt. Umaiba. (vii) 13.05 cents of land in R.S.No.5-2 in Vengeri Amsom, Calicut, purchased as per document No. 2677 dt. 21-10-87 for Rs. 48,285/- -do- (viii) Residential building under construction in the above plots (amount so far spent upto 31.3.89 Rs.2,25,000) -do- (ix) Residential building at Beach Road, purchased on 3.12.1988 as per document No.2487/88 for Rs. 2,75,000/-. Jointly held by the AP with his wife Smt. Rukhiya (x) 11 cents of garden land in Chevayoor inR.S.No. 122/1 as per document No. 4960/87dated 14.12.87 for Rs. 11,000/-. Jointly held by the AP with his wife Smt. Rukhiya (xi) 4 rooms with upstairs (Building No.10/17/18 19 of Calicut Corporation at S.M. Street, Calicut in S.No.69/1A, 1C and R.S.No.10-2-39 of Nagaram Amsom of Calicut District purchased on 7.12.1988 value Rs.8 lakhs. Jointly held by the AP with his brother Shri K.P. Abdul Khader (xii) 14 cents of coconut garden in R.S.No. 21-28-731 of Panniyankara Village of Calicut, value Rs. 56,000/- -do- (xiii) 1.20 acres of coconut garden in R.S.No. 21-28-731 of Panniyankara Village of Calicut District - value Rs. 5 lakhs. -do- In view of the fact that the affected person has been indulging in smuggling activities, the acquisition of the abovesaid properties is to be considered as having arisen out of his illegal sources of income. They are, therefore, liable for forfeiture under the provisions of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. Accordingly, I have reason to believe that this is a fit case to issue supplementary notice under section 6(1) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976 to Shri Kundirikkal Parambil Abdul Majeed in respect of the above mentioned properties. " 28. Like wise the following are the reasons recorded in the case of Umaiba who is the petitioner in W.P.No. 16343 of 2000 "Smt.P. Umaiba, is the wife of shri Kundirikkal Parambil Abdul Majeed, a person detained under the COEPOSA Act. She is, therefore, a 'relative' within the meaning of clause (i) of Explanation 2 to Section 2(2) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. Accordingly, proceedings under the SAFEM (FOP), Act, 1976 were initiated in her case on 18.2.86 by issue of notice under section 6(1) of the Act. She is, therefore, a 'relative' within the meaning of clause (i) of Explanation 2 to Section 2(2) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. Accordingly, proceedings under the SAFEM (FOP), Act, 1976 were initiated in her case on 18.2.86 by issue of notice under section 6(1) of the Act. However, on further enquiries, it is seen that the affected person Smt. P.K.Umaiba has acquired, in addition to the properties already covered by notice under Section 6(1) dated 18.2.1986, the following properties in her own name or jointly with her husband :- (i) 34 cents of land with Godown at Nagaram -Amsom, Kozhikodeu, purchased as per document No. 365/89 dated 22.2.89 for Rs.1,60,000/-. Own name (ii) 793/8 cents of garden land in R.S.59-1 in - Panniyankara Amsom Desom purchased as per document No. 562/89 dt. 23.2.898 for Rs.97,500/-. Jointly held by the AP with her Husband Shri.K.P.Abdul Majeed (iii) 19.80 cents of land in R.S.No. 5.2. in Vengeri Amsom, Calicut, purchased, as per documentNo. 2642/87 dt. 16.10.87 for Rs.47,520. -do- (iv) 13.05 cents of land in R.S.5.2 in Vengeri Amsom Calicut, purchased as per document No.2677 dt. 21.10.87 for Rs.48,285/- -do- (v) Residential building under construction in the above plots (amount so far spent upto 31.3.80 Rs.2,25,000). -do- In view of the fact that Shri Kundirikkal Parambil Abdul Madjeed, her husband, has been indulging in smuggling activities, the acquisition of the above said properties is to be considered as having arisen out of illegal sources of income. They are, therefore, liable for forfeiture under the provisions of SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976. Accordingly, I have reason to believe that this is a fit case to issue supplementary notice under Section 6(1) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976 to Smt. P.K.Umaiba in respect of the above mentioned properties. " 29. In the case of Rukhiya who is the petitioner in W.P.No. 16341 of 2000 the following are the reasons recorded. "Mrs. Rukhiya is the wife of Shri Kundirikkal Parambil Abdul Majeed, a person detained under the COFEPOSA Act. She is, therefore, a 'relative' within the meaning of clause (i) of Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976. She is found to have acquired the following properties jointly within her husband :- (i) Residential Building at Beach Road, purchased on 3.12.1988 as per document No.2467/88 for Rs. 2,75,000/- R.S.No. 1.12.474. She is, therefore, a 'relative' within the meaning of clause (i) of Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976. She is found to have acquired the following properties jointly within her husband :- (i) Residential Building at Beach Road, purchased on 3.12.1988 as per document No.2467/88 for Rs. 2,75,000/- R.S.No. 1.12.474. (ii) 11 Cents of Garden land in Chevayoor in R.S.122/1 (Half share) purchased on 14.12.87 as per document No.4960/87 for Rs. 11,000/-. The sources of this investment is not known. As the husband of Smt. Rukhiya has been indulging in smuggling, it has to be considered that the investment has emanated from illegal sources. I am thus satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of notice under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 for the properties mentioned above. " 30. Let me first consider the notice issued to the detenu viz., the husband and the reasons recorded therein. It is stated by the competent authority that the husband was the detenu under the COFEPOSA and thus a person within the meaning of Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA. It is further stated that on further enquiry it was seen that the detenu has acquired the properties mentioned in the said notice either in his own name or jointly with his relatives. The competent authority further stated that the affected person viz., the detenu had been indulging in smuggling activities and the acquisition of the above said properties was to be considered having arisen out of his illegal sources of income and therefore they are liable for forfeiture udner SAFEMA. 31. It is not in dispute that all the properties mentioned in the schedule are either in the name of the detenu or jointly with his wives. In fact except items 11 to 13, which are jointly held by him with his brother, all other items are standing either in his own name or with his wives viz., the other two writ petitioners. It is also not in dispute that those properties were purchased between 1986 to 1989 i.e. after the period of detention. In fact except items 11 to 13, which are jointly held by him with his brother, all other items are standing either in his own name or with his wives viz., the other two writ petitioners. It is also not in dispute that those properties were purchased between 1986 to 1989 i.e. after the period of detention. Thus, the competent authority having found that those properties were acquired after the period of detention in the name of the detenu or jointly with his wives and his brother, has issued the notice under Section 6(1) by recording the reasons as stated supra. 32. Insofar as the writ petitioner viz., P.K.Umaiba is concerned, the competent authority has stated in the reasons that she is the wife of detenu and therefore a relative within the meaning of SAFEMA and on further enquiries it was noticed that the affected person viz., the petitioner has acquired the properties mentioned in the said notice either in her own name or jointly with her husband. Further, the competent authority stated that as the husband was indulging in smuggling activities the acquisition of the above properties is to be considered having arisen out of illegal sources of income. Similar is the reasons recorded in the other wife also. 33. From the perusal of the notices issued and the reasons recorded therein, as discussed supra, I am of the view that the notices issued by the competent authority against these petitioners under Section 6(1) are valid and in accordance with law. 34. In this case, it is to be borne in mind that the parties are not merely relatives but are spouses. Therefore, in my considered view, the presumption would be that the properties were acquired out of the illegal source of income, when admittedly the husband of other two petitioners was a detenu under the COFEPOSA. As I have already pointed out, it is only a show cause notice and the persons against whom such notices were issued have got ample opportunities to disprove such belief before the competent authority. As I have already pointed out, it is only a show cause notice and the persons against whom such notices were issued have got ample opportunities to disprove such belief before the competent authority. The very reading of Section 6(1) would show that the persons against whom such notices were issued are given not less than 30 days time to indicate the sources of their income, earnings or assets and the evidence on which they rely and other information and particulars and prove before the competent authority that such belief as stated in Section 6(1) notice is not correct and that the property is not an illegally acquired property. 35. The term "reason to believe" contemplated under such notice is not to be construed as a final determination by the competent authority. On the other hand it is his prima facie belief. Needless to say that a show cause notice is not determining the rights of the parties. Time and again, it has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by the Apex Court that show cause notice shall not give a cause of action to challenge unless they are issued without jurisdiction or it is illegal on the face of it. Here in this case the competency or jurisdiction is not questioned. It is also to be noted that the competent authority has not concluded finally with his belief in the said notice. The reason to be recorded in the said notice, in my considered view, is to the satisfaction of the competent authority and not to the satisfaction of the person affected. In other words, if the competent authority has reasons to believe that the properties under dispute were acquired out of illegal sources of income such satisfaction is enough to call upon the concerned person to show cause. Insufficiency of the reasons recorded is different from no reasons recorded. Whether reasons stated in the notice would satisfy the requirement is the question not for this Court to go into it, as the same is the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. 36. In any event the petitioners have not challenged Section 6(1) notice immediately on receipt of the same. On the other hand, accepting the said notice they appeared before the competent authority and filed their objections. 36. In any event the petitioners have not challenged Section 6(1) notice immediately on receipt of the same. On the other hand, accepting the said notice they appeared before the competent authority and filed their objections. Hence the petitioners, even otherwise are estopped from questioning the said notice on the grounds set out in these writ petitions. 37. It is to be seen further that much water has flown after issuance of 6(1) notice. The petitioners appeared before the competent authority and after due opportunity of hearing, a composite order came to be passed wherein the competent authority has found that the petitioners have not proved their sources of income for acquiring the properties. These factual developments cannot be ignored by this Court by considering the submissions of the petitioners with regard to Section 6(1) notice alone. 38. It is also to be noted that the validity of the 6(1) notice was never challenged by the petitioners either before the competent authority or before the appellate authority. It is only their case that the reasons recorded therein were not sufficient. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the notice contained the value of the properties and prima facie belief of the competent authority that those properties were to be considered as having arisen out of the illegal sources of income of the detenu. Thus in my considered view, the said notice satisfies the requirement of law and therefore the consequent composite order issued is not at all vitiated on the reasons set out by the petitioners. 39. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered in Attorney General case and reported in 1994 (5) SCC 54 . In paragraph 43 and 44 the Apex Court has observed as follows:- "43. “TAMIL” We can take note of the fact that persons engaged in smuggling and foreign exchange manipulations do not keep regular and proper accounts with respect to such activity or its income or of the assets acquired therefrom. If such person indulges in other illegal activity, the position would be no different. The violation of foreign exchange laws and laws relating to export and import necessarily involves violation of tax laws. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that over the last few decades, smuggling, foreign exchange violations, tax evasion, drugs and crime have all got mixed-up. If such person indulges in other illegal activity, the position would be no different. The violation of foreign exchange laws and laws relating to export and import necessarily involves violation of tax laws. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that over the last few decades, smuggling, foreign exchange violations, tax evasion, drugs and crime have all got mixed-up. Evasion of taxes is integral to such activity. It would be difficult for any authority to say, in the absence of any accounts or other relevant material that among the properties acquired by a smuggler, which of them or which portions of them are attributable to smuggling and foreign exchange violations and which properties or which portions thereof are attributable to violation of other laws (which Parliament has the power to make). “TAMIL” It is probably for this reason that the burden of proving that the properties specified in the show-cause notice are not illegally acquired properties is placed upon the person concerned. ... “TAMIL” 44. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that extending the provisions of SAFEMA to the relatives, associates and other 'holders' is again a case of overreaching or of over-breadth, as it may be called a case of excessive regulation. It is submitted that the relatives or associates of a person falling under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 2(2) of SAFEMA may have acquired properties of their own, may be by illegal means but there is no reason why those properties be forfeited under SAFEMA just because they are related to or are associates of the detenu or convict, as the case may be. It is pointed out that the definition of 'relative' in Explanation (2) and of ,associates' in Explanation (3) are so wide as to bring in a person even distantly related or associated with the convict/detenu, within the net of SAFEMA, and once he comes within the net, all his illegally acquired properties can be forfeited under the Act. In our opinion, the said contention is based upon a misconception.." 40. The learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (3) CTC 345 (The Competent Authority Vs. Hameed Abdul Kader and Another) wherein at paragraphs 43, 45, 52 and 53 it has been observed as follows:- "43. In our opinion, the said contention is based upon a misconception.." 40. The learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (3) CTC 345 (The Competent Authority Vs. Hameed Abdul Kader and Another) wherein at paragraphs 43, 45, 52 and 53 it has been observed as follows:- "43. The Competent Authority in its show cause notice, very clearly stated that the property was purchased with the unexplained money. The relationship of the second respondent with the detenu was also indicated in the show cause notice. Therefore, the word "unaccounted money" as indicated in the show cause notice, was used only with reference to the money contributed by the detenu under COFEPOSA. Since the Competent Authority clearly indicated the reasons for taking action under SAFEMA, naturally burden of proof shifted on the First Respondent to prove that the property was not illegally acquired property. 45. The learned counsel for the First Respondent challenged the order under Section 6(1) on the ground that sufficient reasons were not indicated and in the absence of the same, question of burden of proof loses significance. The First Respondent has no case before the Statutory Authorities that the show cause notice was defective. The First Respondent in his explanation attempted to justify the purchase by showing the persons from whom he received money. ....:" 52. The satisfaction recorded by the Competent Authority was on the basis of materials. The explanation submitted by the First Respondent was considered threadbare and detailed reasons were given. The Tribunal in its well considered and reasoned order, concurred with the findings recorded by the Competent Authority. 53. The question is whether it is open to this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to re-appreciate the materials and arrive at a different conclusion. The power of judicial review is concerned only with the decision making process. Under the guise of judicial review, it is not permissible to consider the facts once again. Limited power of judicial review does not enable the Court to scan the materials considered by the Statutory Authorities and to arrive at an independent conclusion. The power of judicial review is concerned only with the decision making process. Under the guise of judicial review, it is not permissible to consider the facts once again. Limited power of judicial review does not enable the Court to scan the materials considered by the Statutory Authorities and to arrive at an independent conclusion. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in upsetting the orders passed by the Statutory Authorities." Thus, from the reading of the above decisions, it could be seen that the notice issued under Section 6(1) is in accordance with law and does not vitiate the proceedings. 41. On merits, the petitioners contended that the composite order passed by the competent authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice on the reason that he has relied upon a statement said to have been issued by the detenu on 6.2.1984, without furnishing the copy of the same to the petitioners. 42. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the competent authority dated 20.6.1996. I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. A perusal of the order would show that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity by the competent authority before passing the composite order. A common reply was filed by the petitioners on 30.3.1996 followed by personal hearings on several dates. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioners filed written replies on 24.12.88, 18.1.89, 18.3.91, 21.3.91, 19.4.95 and 25.5.95. Through those replies, the petitioners had explained the sources of acquisition of the properties under notice. Thus, after hearing the petitioners and perusing their written objections, the competent authority passed the composite order. He has also recorded that during the course of the proceedings, copies of several documents such as purchase deeds, passport of the detenu, SSLC Certificate, NRE Account, details of cheques issued, pass book of share and loan account of the petitioners have been filed. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have been given full opportunity to furnish the documents which they would like to rely upon. The only grievance set out in these writ petitions on the question of principles of natural justice is that the competent authority relied upon a statement of the petitioner dated 6.2.1984 said to have been given under the COFEPOSA proceedings. The only grievance set out in these writ petitions on the question of principles of natural justice is that the competent authority relied upon a statement of the petitioner dated 6.2.1984 said to have been given under the COFEPOSA proceedings. According to the petitioners, the copy of the said statement was not furnished to the petitioners and therefore it violates the principles of natural justice. In fact a perusal of the order of the competent authority would show that he has not come to the conclusion based on the said statement alone and on the other hand he has reasoned out for his conclusion at paragraph No.4 itself based on the passports produced by the detenu/petitioner. The relevant paragraph No.4 of the competent authority is extracted hereunder:- "4. .... To substantiate the contention that PA1 went abroad and made his earnings there, he has produced photo copies of his passport J518769 issued on 16.06.73, which was valid upto June, 1983. PA1 also furnished a coy of another passport U086552 dated 23.04.83 issued at Dubai and valid upto 22.04.1988. A scrutiny of the departure and arrival entry indicates that PA1 had last visited Dubai on 10.01.84 and returned back on 14.01.84. Thereafter, there have been no arrival and departure entries in the passport. This indicates that ever since January, 1984, PA1 had not gone to Dubai. This being the position, it is apparent that during the period of remittances from abroad i.e. 06.05.86 to 28.05.92, as indicated herein above, PA1 was not employed in Dubai but was available only in India. The obvious conclusion is that the remittances have been made not from his own earnings made at Dubai." 43. Thus, it is crystal clear that the detenu himself had furnished photo copies of his passports in No.J518769 and U086552. These passports were verified by the competent authority and on such verification he has found that during the period of the above remittances of amount from abroad, the detenu was not employed in Dubai as contended by him but was very much available in India. Thus, he had concluded that the remittances during the relevant period have been made not from his own earnings made at Dubai. Only to substantiate such finding the competent authority referred to the statement given by the detenu on 6.2.1984 in the COFEPOSA proceedings. Thus, he had concluded that the remittances during the relevant period have been made not from his own earnings made at Dubai. Only to substantiate such finding the competent authority referred to the statement given by the detenu on 6.2.1984 in the COFEPOSA proceedings. Therefore, in my considered view, reference to the said statement by itself is not the basis for the competent authority to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, non-furnishing of the said statement does not vitiate the proceedings. Moreover, the petitioners have not pleaded the prejudice caused by non-furnishing of such statement. In this aspect, the decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1669 (State of Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma) will have relevance wherein the Apex Court has found that non-supply of documents relied on by the respondent therein will not amount to violation of principles of natural justice, where there is substantial compliance of natural justice and no prejudice is caused on account of non-supply. It is found by the competent authority that wives have no independent sources of income and they have acquired the properties only through the illegal income derived by the husband/detenu. By perusing the passports filed by the husband, the competent authority has come to the conclusion that during the relevant period the detenu was not employed in Dubai but he was available only in India and that the remittances during that period have been made not from his own earnings made at Dubai. Thus, in the absence of any other materials placed before the competent authority, he has rightly come to the conclusion that those remittances were made not through the legal source of income derived by the detenu. The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge their burden to disprove the said contention as required under Section 8 of the said Act. 44. Further, it is admitted by the wives in their respective affidavit filed in support of their writ petition that they acquired the properties out of the money advanced to them from NRE account of the detenu. It is not their case that they have any other independent source of income. In the absence of such contention and in view of their categorical admission, I find that the competent authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the properties under dispute are illegally acquired properties. 45. It is not their case that they have any other independent source of income. In the absence of such contention and in view of their categorical admission, I find that the competent authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the properties under dispute are illegally acquired properties. 45. The petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as against the composite order. There also the matter was dragged for nearly five years. Even then the petitioners were given adequate opportunity to put forth their case and they were represented by their counsel. When the petitioners wanted to produce some additional evidence, the Tribunal found that the petitioners were given adequate opportunity by the competent authority and therefore, fresh evidence cannot be accepted at the appellate stage. It is the categorical finding of the Tribunal that at no stage, before competent authority, it was claimed by the appellants/petitioners that more time was required for filing some vital documents which was refused by the competent authority. The Appellate Tribunal also pointed out that there is no bar on the competent authority to take into account the acquisition of other properties by the detenu which appear to have been acquired after issuance of first notice particularly when they appear to have been acquired out of income from illegal activities. The Appellate Tribunal also gone into the passports produced by the detenu before the competent authority and found that after 14.1.1984 there had been no departure or arrival entries in the passports and since January 1984 the detenu has not gone abroad. The said factual finding has not been controverted even at appellate stage. Thus the Tribunal has pointed out that the detenu was living in India continuously from 10.1.1984 onwards and therefore he could not have been remitting money to himself from Dubai from May 1986 to May 1992 and that the money could not have come from his earnings through legal meaans in Dubai. The Tribunal also pointed out that there was no evidence at all in this case as to how such money had flown from Dubai to India, even though the detenu was in India and also was in Jail from June 1984 to 1985. By pointing out all these factual aspects, the Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners. Mere proof of remittance of money through Bank is not sufficient to hold such remittance is from legal means. By pointing out all these factual aspects, the Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners. Mere proof of remittance of money through Bank is not sufficient to hold such remittance is from legal means. A person who claim that a source is through legal means, he has to establish it. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the decision in reported in 2007 (6) SCC 21 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.Mohanakala) wherein the Apex observed thus:- 26. "... The findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below are based on proper appreciation of the facts and the material available on record and surrounding circumstances. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee have been duly taken into consideration by the authorities below. The transactions though apparent were held to be not real ones. May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence." 46. Further, in a decision reported in 2011 (3) CTC 345 (The Competent Authority Vs. Hameed Abdul Kader and Another), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "50. The First Respondent has shown the loan amount in his income tax returns and that was accepted by the Income Tax Department. Mere acceptance of the said return would not absolve the First Respondent from his liability to prove the acquisition of property inasmuch as the burden is on him to demonstrate that the property was not illegally acquired SAFEMA nowhere provides that the Competent Authority is bound by by the Income -tax returns submitted by the person against whom action was taken. These two enactments operate in two different fields. The authorities under SAFEMA are at liberty to take the assistance of the Customs Department, Central Excise Department, Income Tax Department, Police Department and all offices of Central or State Government for the purpose of deciding the proceedings initiated under the said Act. Section 18 gives an option to the Competent Authority to conduct enquiry or survey in respect of any person, place, property or any other relevant matters through the authorities under the Income- tax Act. Section 18 gives an option to the Competent Authority to conduct enquiry or survey in respect of any person, place, property or any other relevant matters through the authorities under the Income- tax Act. However, that does not mean that a duty is cast upon the Competent Authority to refer the matter at all time to the Income tax Department. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the failure on the part of the Competent Authority to invoke Section 18 vitiated the ultimate order passed by him. With respect, we are not in agreement with the said view. The provisions of SAFEMA does not contain any indication that assessment orders passed by the income authorities would constitute sufficient proof regarding the legal nature of the acquisition of property. When the burden is on the concerned person to prove that the property was not acquired with the tainted income, necessarily, he should produce materials to prove his source of money. 47. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders of the respondents. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.