Prior to this order, her other property purchased from the sales proceeds of the flat in question was already forfeited by the authorities. Thus, she was punished twice for the same offence. The flat located at Bandra West, an upmarket suburb of Mumbai, was forfeited by the Competent Authority on June 1. The said house was purchased in 1975 by Tahira, the second wife of Talab Haji Hussein Sumbhania who was detained under COFEPOSA in April 1976 by the authorities in Gujarat for his involvement in smuggling activities.

In 1977, the Competent Authority under SAFEMA issued a notice forforfeiture of the flat on the grounds that it was acquired through ill-gotten wealth.SAFEMA provides for forfeiture of all such properties that are acquired from illegal activities by smugglers, foreign exchange manipulators who are detained or convicted and their relatives and all other associates.

Tahira's acquisition fell under the purview of the act and the showcause notice was issued by the competent authority. She had moved the Bombay high court challenging her husband's detention as well as the forfeiture of her flat.

The high court, then while admitting her petition, directed Tahira to file an undertaking that she will not dispose of the property. In 1980, her husband died even as petition was pending. In 1981, she sold the Bandra flat to Tayeb Ali for Rs 3.6 lakh and purchased another flat out of the sale proceeds.

When the Competent Authority learnt about the purchase of the new flat it decided to forfeit the new property in 1995 even as the forfeiture against the Bandra flat was stillpending.

The Competent Authority's contention was that the flat at Bandra which was acquired through ill-gotten wealth was sold by the owner despite filing an undertaking before the high court and despite the continuation of the original forfeiture notice. Even before the dismissal of the writ and appeal filed by Tahira it was liable for forfeiture. According to the provisions of the SAFEMA, any new property acquired from the sale proceeds of old flat also becomes liable for forfeiture.

Accordingly, the Competent Authority took possession of the newly acquired flat in 1995 following the dismissal of the writ filed by Tahira. Now, the purchaser of the original flat at Bandra is challenging its forfeiture on the grounds that he had purchased the said flat in good faith and was unaware of the pendency of the forfeiture notice. Besides, Ali also contended that even building society was unaware of the forfeiture notice.

When the high court gleaned of the contempt committed by Tahira, it sentenced her to asix month term besides imposing fine.