Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sangeeta Sinha, Sanjay Sinha And ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. And State ... on 21 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2007(4)JCR287(JHR)]
Author: M. Karpaga Vinayagam
Bench: M. Karpaga Vinayagam, N.N. Tiwari
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 151 and 154 of 2001 relate to appeals which are filed by the appellants Smt. Sangeeta Sinha and San-jay Sinha challenging the order dated 2.3.2000 whereby the ad interim order of attachment of properties made on 18.2.1997 has been made absolute under Section 5(3) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944.
Criminal Appeal No. 383/01 would relate to the appeal filed by the appellants Smt. Sangeeta Sinha and Sanjay Sinha challenging the consequential order passed by the Court below on 25.5.2001 whereby Receiver has been appointed in terms of Section 9(2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944.
These three appeals can be disposed of by this common order, as they relate to the same appellants and same properties.
2. The short facts are as follows:
Appellant Sanjay Sinha is an accused in R.C. Case No. 47(A)/96 and other cases. He has been convicted in R.C. Case No. 19(A)/96, which is one of the Fodder Scam cases. According to the prosecution, appellant Sanjay Sinha, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched with other accused persons, had defalcated Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand to the extent of Rs. 257.82 Crores and from that ill-gotten money, he acquired a large number of moveable and immoveable assets in his name and also in the name of his wife, Sangeeta Sinha another appellant and the investigation disclosed that properties acquired in the names of both Sangeeta Sinha and Sanjay Sinha have actually been purchased from the ill-gotten money defrauded by the appellant, Sanjay Sinha. The criminal case was only against Sanjay Sinha in the Fodder Scam Cases but Sangeeta Sinha, his wife, was made a party in the case under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 as she has no own source of income to purchase those properties which have been acquired in her name.
For recovery of the Government money, the proceeding was to be initiated against both of them. Accordingly, the Court below on the application filed by CBI, passed an ad interim order of attachment against the appellants and attached their properties by the ad interim order dated 18.2.1997. Thereafter at the request of CBI, final order has been passed by the Court below on 2.3.2000. Before final order was passed, the Court below gave opportunity to both of them to file show cause. Appellant Sangeeta Sinha filed her show cause claiming that the properties attached are her self-acquired properties. However, during the course of enquiry, she did not choose to produce any document in support of her claim that the properties actually belong to her. In the meantime, the interim order passed earlier was challenged by the appellant, Sanjay Sinha, raising the jurisdiction of the Court, but the same was rejected by the Court below through order dated 6.1.2000. Finally, as no evidence was produced by the appellant, Sangeeta Sinha, and other appellant in support of their claim, final order was passed on 2.3.2000 confirming the ad interim order of attachment. Thereafter in pursuance of the final orders passed on 2.3.2000 and on 25.5.2001 on the application filed by CBI requesting for appointment of Receiver to take over the properties, the Court below, after giving opportunity to the appellants to file objection, passed order holding that appointment of Receiver is necessary to look after those properties. These two orders namely 2.3.2000 and 25.5.2001 are the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
3. The main grounds urged by the counsel for the appellants challenging the order passed on 2.3.2000 and 25.5.2001 are that those orders have been passed without giving proper opportunity to the appellants infringing principles of natural justice and that the orders are illegal in view of the fact that there is no jurisdiction for the trial Court to pass those orders on account of violation of Sections 3(3) and 5(2) of the Ordinance, 1944.
4. While opposing the points urged by the counsel for the appellants, counsel for the respondent-CBI through counter-affidavit as well as written submission' stated that opportunities have been given and the jurisdiction point has already been decided by the trial Court earlier on 6.1.2000 which was never challenged by them and as such, appeals are liable to be rejected.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through records.
6. According to the prosecution, in pursuance of the order passed by Patna High Court on 11.3.1996 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 19.3.1996, CBI has taken up investigation in Fodder Scam cases and during the course of investigation, it was found out that Sanjay Sinha, one of the accused (appellant), had received several crores from the office of Regional Director, A.H.D., Ranchi by showing supplying ground nut cakes on forged and false bills. The accused Sanjay Sinha, in conspiracy with other accused, defrauded the Government to the extent of several crores on the basis of fake allotment order purportedly issued by the office of the Director. A.H. Department and supply orders issued from different Units of Ranchi during the period 1991 to 1995. Thus fake supplies were shown by all the suppliers including the appellant and huge amount was withdrawn and the same had been misappropriated. The total amount defrauded in this case by the accused is reported to be to the extent of Rs. 257.82 Crores.
7. The investigation conducted revealed that the accused Sanjay Sinha has acquired huge moveable and immoveable assets in his name and also in the name of his wife, Smt. Sangeeta Sinha, having his office at Doranda, Ranchi. Further investigation revealed that there are materials gathered to show that several moveable and immoveable properties in the form of flats, shops fixed deposits, land and other properties were purchased in the name of accused Sanjay Sinha and his wife and others. As the money and properties shown in the show-cause notice may be required for disposal, necessary application had been made by CBI after getting permission from the competent authority, under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, requesting for attachment of the properties. While filing this application all the materials have been placed before the Court below, who, in turn, after considering all the materials ultimately passed ad interim order of attachment on 18.2.1997. Thereafter notices were issued to the opp.-parties-appellants. They were allowed to file their show cause. They also filed rejoinder to the petition. Ultimately, final order has been passed on 2.3.2000.
8. In the meantime, the petition had been filed by the appellants in Misc. Case No. 39/97 raising the point of jurisdiction on the ground that the Special Judge appointed by the Government is not entitled to entertain such petitions.
9. It was strenuously contended by the counsel for CBI that under the provisions of Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, such petitions for attachment of properties are to be made before the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the said person ordinarily resides or carries on business and that the Court below, the Special Judge, in the light of the provision laid down under Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while trying offences punishable under Sections 7 to 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, shall have all the powers, and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, and is not making the trial of the case but is simply passing order in respect of attachment of moveable and immoveable property. He further stated that as per Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Ordinance, ad interim order should be passed by the Court without any delay as the object of this provision is obviously to enable the taking of immediate action to guard against the illicit disposal or transfer of the property or money procured by the offender through ill-gotten money and consequently the necessary orders have been passed.
10. Further, the Court below dismissed the application filed by appellants raising jurisdiction by giving detailed reasons by the order dated 6.1.2000. Admittedly, this order has not been challenged.
11. It is also notice that opportunities had been given to the appellants before passing final order in the application on which ad interim order of attachment was made. Only after considering the entire materials and taking into consideration the fact that no evidence was adduced by appellant Sangeeta Sinha to show that the properties were procured by her by her own source of income ad interim order of attachment dated 18.2.1997 was made absolute on 2.3.2000. The order of appointment of Receiver by the order dated 25.5.2001 is only consequential order.
12. Thus, when there is no material to hold that the order would suffer from any infirmity we cannot hold that the orders of attachment which was made on 2.3.2000 and also the consequential order appointing Receiver can be held to be invalid. Therefore, all these appeals are dismissed.
N.N. Tiwari, J.
13. I agree.