Orissa High Court
Ahalya Padhi vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 5 September, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 275
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLA No. 504 Of 2017
From the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Authorised
Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No. 02
of 2016.
----------------------------
Ahalya Padhi ......... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa & Ors. ......... Respondents
For Appellant: - Mr. Pitambar Acharya
(Senior Advocate)
Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Mohapatra
For State: - Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment: 05.09.2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. SAHOO, J. The appellant Ahalya Padhi has preferred this appeal
under section 17 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006
(hereafter '2006 Act') challenging the impugned order dated
06.04.2017 passed by the learned Authorised Officer, Special
Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No. 02 of 2016
whereby the learned Court rejected her petition dated
2
08.03.2017 in which prayer was made to return some documents
seized from the residential house of her late husband late Anam
Charan Padhi at Ganeswarpur and from the official quarters of
her son-in-law Benudhar Dash (respondent no.2) and to delete
some properties from the schedule of the confiscation application
and also to exclude the education and upbringing expenditure of
her adopted son Subrata Kumar Padhi (respondent no.4) from
the charge sheet filed against the respondents nos.2 and 3 in
Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.48 of 2008 with
consequential changes in the application filed by the State in the
confiscation proceeding.
2. On 16.12.2008 Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case
No.48 of 2008 was instituted against respondent no.2 Benudhar
Dash, Ex-Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Odisha,
Bhubaneswar who is the son-in-law of the appellant and on
completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed on
29.03.2014 against the respondent no.2 and his wife Smt.
Bishnupriya Dash (respondent no.3) for commission of offences
under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act') read with section
109 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that the
respondent no.2 being a public servant was having
3
disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.62,38,993.66 paisa
during the check period from 28.10.1978 to 29.11.2008 i.e. the
date of search, which he could not account for satisfactorily.
As per the charge sheet, the respondent no.2 hails
from village Chadheiya under Bhadrak Rural police station. His
father late Muralidhar Dash was basically a marginal farmer
having only five to seven acres of rain-fed single-cropped land
which is being utilized in 'Bhaga Chasa' basis and besides that he
was earning a little through 'Yajamaani' as he was Purohit. He
was blessed with four sons and five daughters. The respondent
no.2 was the eldest among them. With the scanty agricultural
income through 'Bhaga Chasa' and 'Yajamaani', late Muralidhar
Dash had to mange a big family and education of his children
leaving no scope for any savings. Therefore, the respondent no.2
who was born on 10.01.1954 had no affluent family background
but he came from a lower middle class family.
Prior to his joining as OAS Officer on 19.10.1978, the
respondent no.2 worked as a lecturer in Chemistry in Khalikote
College, Berhampur, Bhadrak College, Bhadrak and as a
Laboratory Assistant in the office of Dy. Director, Chemical
Analysis, Govt. Laboratory, Jajpur Road, Dist-Jajpur. During his
OAS tenure, he worked in various capacities as an OAS Officer till
4
the date of search when he was continuing as Addl.
Commissioner -cum- Ex-Officio, Addl. Secretary of Govt.,
Revenue & Disaster Management, Bhubaneswar, Orissa in the
office of SRC.
On 08.03.1979 the respondent no.2 married to
respondent no.3 Bishnupriya Dash, who was the only daughter
late Anam Charan Padhi and the appellant Ahlaya Padhi of
village-Dahi in the district of Balasore. Late Anam Charan Padhi
had only seven to eight acres of cultivable land. The respondents
nos. 2 and 3 were blessed with two sons namely Subrata Kumar
Padhi (respondent no.4) and Haragouri Prasad Dash (respondent
no.5) and one daughter namely Sanghamitra Dash (respondent
no.6). Both the sons studied in KIIT Engineering College and the
daughter Sanghamitra Dash studied in Orissa College of
Engineering, Bhubaneswar. Subrat Kumar Padhi and
Sanghamitra Dash completed their M.B.A. from Xavier Institute
of Management, Bangalore and Institute of Cooperative
Management, CRP Square, Bhubaneswar. Subrat Kumar Padhi
and Haragouri Prasad Dash joined in 'Infosys' during the year
2007 and 2008 respectively. The respondents nos. 2 and 3
solemnized the marriage ceremony of their daughter
Sanghamitra Dash on 27.04.2008 at Hotel Swosti Plaza,
5
Bhubaneswar pompously. In this manner, the respondent no.2
spent a lot for the education of his children besides taking care of
his parents, brothers and sister on all accounts i.e. education,
marriage, etc. being the eldest son of the family.
The charge sheet further reveals that the property
statement of respondent no.2 was opened on 20.10.2009 in the
official chamber of Dr. Gopinath Bisoi, OAS (S), Jt. Secy to Govt.
G.A. (SE) Department and it was found that he had submitted
property statement only once during his career upto 31.12.2007
which has been received in G.A. (SE) Department on 27.12.2008
by hand. It is evident that the respondent no.2 had submitted
the property statement after his house was searched and the
Investigating Officer thought it proper not to take into account
such property statement.
From the Income tax returns filed by the respondent
no.2, it is evident that he had shown salary income from
Assessment year 1999-2000 to 2008-2009. Hence the income of
the respondent no.2 from the salary income was accepted.
During the said period, the respondent no.2 paid income tax of
Rs.1,83,560/- from which he had paid Rs.42,022/- directly as
evident from Form No.16 which was computed towards
expenditure.
6
The respondent no.3 Smt. Bishnupriya Dash filed her
income tax returns by showing income from diary farming and
tuition. She has paid income tax of Rs.19,054/-. The respondent
no.2 had not obtained any permission from the Govt. under
section 17 of Orissa Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 for
doing business by his wife and therefore, the Investigating
Officer thought it proper not to accept the benefit from the
income towards diary farming and tuition by the respondent
no.3.
During course of investigation, different
persons/witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case were examined and documents relating to the assets,
income and expenditure were collected/seized. From the
documents collected and statements of witnesses recorded
during investigation, it was found that during the check period,
the total assets of the respondent no.2 was Rs.47,56,480.45
paisa, the expenditure was Rs.37,51,876.95 paisa, the total
income was Rs.22,69,363.74 paisa and therefore, the
disproportionate assets was calculated to be Rs.62,38,993.66
paisa.
3. The Govt. of Orissa, Home Department, Bhubaneswar
as per order dated 17.12.2015 in exercise of powers conferred
7
under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the 2006 Act authorized
the Public Prosecutor concerned for making an application to the
Authorized Officer, Bhubaneswar for confiscation of
properties/pecuniary resources which were mentioned under the
heading of immovable properties and moveable properties in
total to the tune of Rs.47,56,480.45 paisa.
On the basis of such authorization, Public Prosecutor,
Vigilance in the Court of Authorized Officer, Special Court,
Bhubaneswar filed an application under section 13(1) of the 2006
Act which is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Investigating
Officer and registered as Confiscation Case No.02 of 2016 to
declare the properties mentioned in Schedule-A and B of the
application to have been acquired by means of the offence under
section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of 1988 Act read with
section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and for confiscation of such
properties to the State Govt. in accordance with the provisions of
the 2006 Act and the Orissa Special Courts Rules, 2007
(hereafter '2007 Rules').
4. While the matter was pending before the learned
Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation
Case No.02 of 2016, the appellant Ahalya Padhi filed a petition
on 08.03.2017 before the said Court with a prayer to return
8
some of the seized documents and delete some of the properties
mentioned in the confiscation application and also to exclude
educational upbringing expenditure of her adopted son from the
charge sheet filed against the respondents nos.2 and 3 with
consequential changes in the application filed by the State.
It is the case of the appellant that her deceased
husband Anam Charan Padhi was an affluent cultivator having
about more than 16 acres of highly productive double crop
agricultural land, apart from ponds for pisciculture and land for
horticulture and a big double storied ancestral farm house -cum-
residential building at his native village-Dahi, costing around
Rs.20.00 lakhs. It is stated that the husband of the appellant was
having substantial income and he was also an income tax
assessee since 1993-94 (when his income from agriculture,
pisciculture, horticulture, house rent and interest on savings
exceeded non-taxable limit) to 2008 (when his income became
below non-taxable limit on account of attaining 80 years of age).
The cumulative income of the husband of the appellant before
and during the period 1978-2008 was more than 40 lakhs as had
been shown in the I.T. returns filed. That apart their adopted son
working in I.T. sector was getting salary of about Rs.12.70 lakhs
till 29.11.2008 and income from agriculture property owned by
9
him exclusively. The aforesaid income of the husband of the
appellant and seized four sale deeds were accepted by I.T.
authorities in two scrutiny assessments once in 1994-95
assessment and again in 2009-10 assessment, to have been
purchased from out his own resources after calculating his
maintenance, food & clothing and the education of his adopted
son. The copies of the I.T. returns as accepted by I.T. Authorities
during the scrutiny proceedings of the respondent no.2 were
enclosed for reference and perusal by the learned Authorized
Officer.
It is the further case of the appellant that her
husband had purchased four landed properties including two
contiguous plots covered under two registered sale deeds bearing
nos. 5646 and 5647 dated 12.12.2000 jointly in the name of his
teenaged adopted son and minor grandson vide plot nos.2499
and 2500 of Village-Ganeswarpur, Balasore under the intimation
to I.T. Authorities. The said residential properties over the two
contiguous plots were having one half-constructed building and
an old building constructed in 1984 by the vendor which was
completely damaged in the year 1999 during super cyclone. At
the time of said purchase, her husband was staying in his native
village. Due to old age, the appellant and her husband were
10
suffering from various ailments for which local doctors advised
them to stay in nearby areas of the District Headquarters
Hospital. The husband of the appellant arranged money from
several persons/intended purchasers and ultimately sold eight
plots to those persons who had lent him money for repair of the
damaged old house and new construction.
It is the further case of the appellant that since 2001-
2002, she and her husband started staying at Balasore in the
house purchased by her husband on 12.12.2000 from out the
portion of the consideration money borrowed by him as aforesaid
as advance payment and as indicated in recital of the respective
sale deeds executed. Subsequently they started renovation/
repair of the residential building by spending a portion of the
consideration money (1.40 lakh) so received in advance. After
renovation, since the husband of the appellant was ailing and his
only adopted son (respondent no.4) was staying outside for his
service and higher studies, he was advised to have company of
persons. The husband of the appellant rented a portion of the
said building to different persons successively at different times
by different rent agreements and was paying the land revenue
and different Government dues like telephone, electricity
charges and water connection etc. raised in the name of her
11
husband. It is stated that the super cyclone affected the old
house constructed in the year 1984 by the vendor and not 2001-
02 as calculated by the vigilance authorities.
It is the further case of the appellant that her late
husband was the only issue of his father and he was having only
one daughter and therefore, she and her late husband adopted
eldest son of their daughter Smt. Bishnupriya Das (respondent
no.2) namely Subrata Kumar Padhi (respondent no.4) on
10.02.1989 for protection and security of their huge properties
and to offer Pinda after their demise. The husband of the
appellant performed Chari Karma, Bratopanayana, education and
marriage of the respondent no.4. Subsequently the husband of
the appellant wanted to reduce the said adoption into writing for
future reference and requested his daughter (respondent no.3)
and son-in-law (respondent no.2) in that connection and
accordingly, they executed a deed of adoption and registered the
same vide Regd. Adoption Deed No.2 dated 06.03.1990. It is
stated that since the date of said adoption till his death, the
husband of the appellant was taking social, educational and
financial care of the respondent no.4 and also bearing the
expenses of his education and other requirements and brought
up of his son. He also performed the marriage ceremony of the
12
respondent no.4 & the respondent no.4 in turn performed the
Sudhikriya of the husband of the appellant.
It is the further case of the appellant that out of love
and affection, late Anam Charan Padhi purchased four pieces of
lands including one partly constructed and one old cyclone
affected damaged house with land (jointly) in the names of his
adopted son (respondent no.4) and grandson Haragouri Prasad
Dash (respondent no. 5), the other son of his daughter by paying
the consideration money as narrated in recitals of the sale deeds
and miscellaneous expenses for registration exclusively from his
own income/resources and executed four registered sale deeds
viz. No.5646 & 5647 dated 12.12.2000, No.2670 dated
11.06.1997 & No.2326 dated 06.06.1994 and paying land
revenue and other Government dues on behalf of his teenaged
son and minor grandson by him and after him, the appellant is
looking after and possessing the said properties on their behalf
and staying in the same house so purchased in Plot Nos. 2499 &
2500 of Ganeswarpur and took up additional construction work
on the land. It is stated that the fact of the above purchases
were duly intimated to the I.T. authorities by the husband of the
appellant in the respective I.T. Returns of concerned assessment
year 2001-02 and 2002-03.
13
The appellant in order to establish the financial status
of her husband, filed I.T. returns & income certificate issued by
the Tahasildar, Khaira dated 03.06.2009 depicting income for
2007-08 disclosing his annual income to be about Rs. 4.5 lakhs.
It is the further case of the appellant that during
early part of November 2008, late Anam Charan Padhi had been
to Bhubaneswar for the health check up of the appellant and took
some original documents including above described RSD No.2670
dated 11.06.1997 for lamination purpose with him but due to
other engagements, the lamination could not be done and while
returning, he had left the RSD No.2670 at his son-in-law's house
at Bhubaneswar due to oversight.
It is the further case of the appellant that on
29.11.2008 the ancestral house of the husband of the appellant
at village-Dahi, his residential house at Ganeswarpur and the
Govt. Quarters of his son-in-law (respondent no.2) were
searched by Vigilance Officers in Vigilance Misc. Case
No.13/2008. While no document was seized from the ancestral
house of the husband of the appellant at village-Dahi, RSD Nos.
5646 and 5647 dated 12.12.2000 along with Khatian No.
1322/270 in the names of his adopted son (respondent no.4) and
14
grandson (respondent no.5) were illegally seized from his
residential house at Ganeswarpur.
It is stated that during the search, six passbooks,
three bank instruments, four other RSDs, rent receipts of his son,
six Khatians, one building plan and other documents were also
illegally seized. From the official quarter of his son-in-law, RSD
No. 2670 dated 11.06.1997 were also seized.
However, Regd. Deed of Adoption dated 06.03.1990
and RSD No. 2326 dated 06.06.1994 under the custody of
petitioner's husband were not seized since those two documents
were sent for lamination locally by him prior to the date of
seizure.
It is stated that during investigation of the aforesaid
Vigilance Case, late Anam Charan Padhi had submitted two
representations to the Vigilance authorities on 10.02.2009 and
22.07.2013 explaining the plight of an old man like him and
praying for releasing his properties and the properties of his
adopted son (respondent no.4) and grandson (respondent no.5)
which was under his lawful custody as their guardian, but his
representations were totally ignored. It is stated that neither
late Anam Charan Padhi nor the appellant had ever been
examined by the I.O. during course of investigation.
15
It is the further case of the appellant that the
properties were purchased by her husband in the names of their
adopted son (respondent no.4) and grandson (respondent no.5)
paying the entire consideration money and registration expenses
from out of his own resources for which he had financial
capabilities and he had disclosed the same to Income Tax
Authorities and the documents and the properties were seized
from his lawful custody and those were in no way related to the
charges leveled against the respondents nos.2 and 3 and seized
to his detriment in violation of the constitutional guarantee
enumerated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is the further case of the appellant that the above
described properties of her husband and the bank documents
under his custody should not have been seized as those
documents had got no nexus or connection with the allegations
leveled against the respondent no.2.
It is stated that those documents are urgently
required for availing loan from the banks for reconstruction of
house over the land and the appellant is aged 84 years and
therefore, she intends to complete the work before taking leave
of this world.
16
5. The State of Odisha through learned Public
Prosecution filed its objection to the petition dated 08.03.2017
filed by the appellant indicating therein that the petition is not
maintainable and after charge sheet was submitted against
respondents nos. 2 and 3 in connection with Bhubaneswar
Vigilance P.S. Case No.48 of 2008, basing on the notification
no.400 dated 12.03.2015 under section 5 of the 2006 Act and
authorization no.3415 dated 17.12.2015 of the State
Government, the Public Prosecutor duly authorized in that behalf
filed the confiscation case against the respondents nos. 2 and 3
as well as their two natural born sons Subrat Kumar Padhi
(respondent no.4) and Haragouri Prasad Dash (respondent no.5)
so also daughter Sangamitra Dash (respondent no.6), sighting
them as opposite parties on the ground that respondent no.2 had
acquired the disproportionate assets in their names during the
check period by committing the offence particularly in the
absence of their sources of income except income of respondent
no.3 for the period from 21.07.1980 to 24.04.1985. It is further
stated in the objection that during investigation, neither the
accused persons i.e. respondents nos. 2 and 3 placed any
materials before the Investigating Officer nor the Investigating
Officer found any materials in support of claim advanced by the
17
appellant. It is further stated that the respondent no.2 is the sole
perpetrator of acquisition of disproportionate assets in the name
of his family members. The claim of the appellant as regards the
acquisition of assets by her husband is palpably false, concocted
and created by the respondent no.2 to save himself from the
rigours of the proceedings. It is further stated that there is no
such provision in the 2006 Act or any other law either to return
the documents/properties and that to at the instance of a
stranger like the appellant who is having no right, title or interest
in respect of such documents/properties and that the bald claims
without any believable and acceptable materials is not
maintainable.
6. The learned Authorized Officer, Special Court,
Bhubaneswar in its impugned order dated 06.04.2017, after
considering the petition dated 08.03.2017 filed by the appellant,
the objection filed by the learned Public Prosecutor and taking
into account the submissions advanced by the learned counsels
for the respective parties has been pleased to hold that the
investigation of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.48 of 2008
revealed that the respondent no.2 acquired the properties in his
name as well as in the name of other respondents i.e. Smt.
Bishnupriya Das, Subrat Kumar Padhi, Haragouri Prasad Das,
18
Sangamitra Das and Madhusudan Samantray and they have been
arrayed as opposite parties in the confiscation proceeding. It is
further held that by mere filing of income tax returns by late
Anam Charan Padhi being an assessee, it cannot be conclusively
said that the husband of the appellant had acquired the
properties involved in the case unless the same is proved during
trial of the proceeding. It is further held that before
commencement of the trial, it cannot be conclusively held that
those properties in connection with which the appellant is
seeking relief, are not involved in the vigilance case pending
against the respondents nos.2 and 3. It is further held that the
seized documents are relevant materials to be proved during trial
of the confiscation proceeding as well as during trial of the
vigilance case against the respondents no.2 and 3 and release of
such documents at the pre-trial period would cause prejudice to
the prosecution and accordingly, the petition filed by the
appellant was rejected.
7. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Advocate and
Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant while challenging the impugned order contended
that the entire allegations are based on benami transaction but
the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its allegation by
19
not examining the title holders of the seized title deeds and not
examining the alleged benamidars. The prosecution has also not
considered the two representations submitted by late Anam
Charan Padhi, husband of the appellant after search and
therefore, the charge sheet is perverse and defective. It is
further contended that the prosecution attempted to include the
properties purchased by late Anam Charan Padhi without
examining him or his adopted son (respondent no.4) during
course of investigation and submitted charge sheet in a casual
manner. It is highlighted that some of the documents which were
seized during course of investigation, in respect of which the
appellant has prayed for its release have not been included in the
charge sheet and therefore, the seizure of such documents is
illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the
show cause replies dated 08.01.2018 filed by respondent no.4
Subrat Kumar Padhi and respondent no.5 Haragouri Prasad Dash
which were filed before the Authorised Officer in the Confiscation
Proceeding along with an affidavit filed by the appellant on
12.02.2018 before this Court. It is further submitted that the
consecutive I.T. scrutiny orders made during 1994 (accepting the
source of income of late Anam Charan Padhi to purchase the
property in the names of his son and grandson vide RSD No.2326
20
dated 06.06.1994 and the educational expenses of his son) and
the second scrutiny order made during 2009 (on the reference of
the vigilance authority after search) made by three IT Appellate
Commissioners, indicates the lawful source of late Anam Charan
Padhi and the respondent no.2 has no contribution for the same.
The rigorous scrutiny and investigation by I.T. Department took
nearly three years to which the appellant, the respondents nos.2
and 3 were subjected to. It is contended that the quasi-
judicial/statutory orders under section 143 of the I.T. Act (filed in
additional affidavit dated 07.11.2017) have been concealed by
the prosecution with malafide intention only to suppress the
lawful income of the appellant and therefore, the charge sheet is
defective. It is contended that malafideness of prosecution is
further evident from the fact that the respondent no.2 is a
signatory in the 1994 sale deed, in which properties have been
purchased in the names of the adopted son and grandson of
appellant, through the respondent no.2 has put his signature
there as the father of his minor son (grandson of the appellant).
It is further contended that since the adopted son
(respondent no.4) and grandson (respondent no.5) of the
appellant were staying abroad, late Anam Charan Padhi and after
him, the appellant is the lawful custodian of their properties and
21
the property documents, which were seized by the vigilance
police during course of investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 48
of 2008. It is argued that in their respective show cause replies,
the respondents nos. 4 and 5 have stated that they desire that
the documents concerning their properties be returned to
appellant.
It is further contended that the defective charge is
the outcome of a defective investigation in which the plea of late
Anam Charan Padhi taken in his representations indicating that
he had earned rupees seven lakhs from his postal certificates
(copies obtained under I.T. Act is enclosed as document no.4)
apart from all other incomes as house rent, agriculture, etc. have
been ignored though the same were accepted by I.T. authorities
on reference by vigilance after detailed scrutiny. It is contended
that the during the house search at village-Dahi, different
documents indicating the financial status and the lawful income
of late Anam Chandra Padhi were seen by the Investigating
Officer but those were deliberately ignored. It is contended that
the action of the investigating agency was not bonafide or
diligent and as such the charge sheet is vulnerable. The learned
counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the cases of D.S.P.,
Chennai -Vrs.- K. Inbasgaran reported in (2006) 1
22
Supreme Court Cases 420, M. Krishna Reddy -Vrs.- State
Deupty Superintendent of Police reported in (1992) 4
Supreme Court Cases 45, K. Veeraswami -Vrs.- Union of
India reported in (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 655 and
Krishnanand -Vrs.- The State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in (1977) 1 Supreme Court Cases 816.
8. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for
the Vigilance Department on the other hand contended that prior
to this criminal appeal, the husband of the appellant filed CRLMC
No.970 of 2015 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this
Court as per order dated 17.10.2016 on the ground of its
maintainability in that form. According to him, the appellant is
not one of the delinquents or persons affected in the confiscation
proceeding and the persons in whose names either the
immovable or moveable properties stand, were arrayed as
delinquents being the persons to be affected, enabling them to
indicate their respective sources of income, earnings or assets,
out of which or by means of which, each of the delinquents
acquired such money or property, the evidence on which each of
them relies and other relevant information and particulars and
also to show cause as to why the properties standing in their
respective names should not be declared to have been acquired
23
by the respondent no.2 by committing the offence under section
13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of 1988 Act and should not be
confiscated to the State. The learned counsel strenuously and
emphatically contended that the appellant is a stranger to
Confiscation Case No.02 of 2016 and in the authorization letter
accorded to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, none of the
properties either immovable or movable standing recorded in the
name of the appellant or her husband were included but all the
same, she filed an application for return of certain documents
which were seized in course of investigation by the Vigilance
Officers from different accommodations of the respondent no.2
and his nears and dears while searching in pursuance of the
search warrant given by the competent Judicial Officer. It is
argued that though charge sheet has been filed relating to
acquisition of disproportionate assets by the respondent no.2 and
respondent no.3 to the tune of Rs.62,38,993.66 paisa during the
check period but the confiscation case has been filed against all
the persons to be affected/delinquents, with a prayer for
confiscation of both the immovable and moveable properties to
the tune of Rs.47,56,480.45 paisa which is much less than the
charge sheet amount. It is contended that the documents sought
to be released by the appellant are very much material to be
24
referred to, both by the trial Court as well as by the Authorized
Officer in course of the trial and inquiry respectively and
therefore, the release of any such document is likely to adversely
affect the smooth progress of the respective proceedings. It is
submitted that in the inquiry before the learned Authorized
Officer, Bhubaneswar, the appellant can adduce her evidence on
behalf of the delinquents-opposite parties to substantiate that
the alleged properties standing jointly in the names of her
adopted son (respondent no. 4) and grandson (respondent no.5)
were purchased by her husband, which if proved, through oral as
well documentary evidence may be beneficial to her and the
learned Authorized Officer will not confiscate the same under
section 15 of the 2006 Act. It is contended that the learned
Authorized Officer has rightly rejected the petition filed by the
appellant dated 08.03.2017 vide impugned order dated
06.04.2017 with the observation that the seized documents are
relevant materials to be proved during the trial of the proceeding
as well as during the trial of the Vigilance case before the trial
Court and that the release of the documents as prayed for by the
appellant at pre-trial period would cause prejudice to the
prosecution. It is contended that while enacting the 2006 Act,
the legislature has given wide scope to the delinquents/persons
25
to be affected under section 14 of the Act to disprove the
allegation of acquisition of disproportionate assets by the
accused in order to evade confiscation application with reference
to the authorization letter given by the Government. It is
contended that submission of income tax returns is immaterial at
the pre-trial stage, which is required to be proved through
evidence at the time of trial and/or inquiry in accordance with
law. It is contended that in course of the investigation of the
case, the I.O. could able to ascertain that only seven to eight
acres of cultivable lands were standing in the name of the
husband of the appellant. He emphasized that the xerox copies
of the sale deeds and documents filed on behalf of the appellant
at the time of hearing of this appeal indicate that in between
1994 and 2000, as both the natural born sons of the respondent
no.2 were minors, the sale deeds were registered through their
guardians late Anam Charan Padhi, husband of the appellant &
Benudhar Dash (respondent no.2) and therefore, oral as well as
documentary evidence are very much necessary in the trial and
also inquiry before the learned Authorized Officer as to whether
the husband of the appellant purchased the alleged properties
through registered sale deeds out of his own income or the
respondent no.2 purchased the same in the names of both of his
26
sons jointly through corrupt means. It is argued that so far the
documents pertaining to income tax returns are concerned, those
are not final and binding on a criminal Court and at best those
are relevant but subject to its independent appraisal on merits.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State Of Karnataka -Vrs.- Selvi
J. Jayalalitha reported in (2017) 67 Orissa Criminal
Reports (SC) 796. It is contended that with the sole intention
to delay the confiscation proceeding, at the instance of
respondents nos. 2 and 3 who are the son-in-law and daughter
respectively, the appellant and/or her deceased husband are
filing frivolous applications and after being rejected, taking
shelter of this Court in order to get an order of stay and
therefore, the appeal should be dismissed and the learned
Authorised Officer be directed to expedite the confiscation
proceeding and conclude the same within a stipulated period.
9. Section 13 of the 2006 Act empowers the State
Government to authorise the Public Prosecutor to make an
application for confiscation before the Authorised Officer and
further stipulates what the application shall accompany. The
section states that only when on the basis of prima facie
evidence, the State Government have reasons to believe that a
27
person who held high public or political office has committed the
'offence' as enumerated under section 2(d) of the 2006 Act,
authorisation to the Public Prosecutor for making such
application can be given. The stage of filing of an application for
confiscation before the Authorised Officer is not dependent upon
whether the Special Court has taken cognizance of the offence or
not. Section 14 of the 2016 Act deals with the service of notice
by the Authorised Officer upon receipt of an application under
section 13 upon the person in respect of whom the application is
made (hereafter referred to as 'the person affected'). The
purpose of service of notice is to enable such person to indicate
the source of his income, earnings or assets, out of which or by
means of which he has acquired such money or property and to
show cause as to why all or any of such money or property or
both, should not be declared to have been acquired by means of
the offence and be confiscated to the State Government. The
person concerned has to indicate in the show cause the evidence
on which he relies or other relevant information and particulars
in support of his income, earnings or assets. Notice of an
application for confiscation shall also be served upon such other
person who holds any money or property or both on behalf of
'the person affected' who can participate in the confiscation
28
proceeding by filing his show cause and may take such stand as
permissible under law and adduce evidence that such money or
property or both do not belong to 'the person affected' as stated
in the confiscation application but he is the real owner of the
same. Section 15(1) of the 2006 Act empowers the Authorized
Officer to record a finding whether all or any other money or
properties in question as mentioned in the application for
confiscation filed under section 13 of the 2006 Act have been
acquired illegally. Such a finding can be given only after
considering the explanation, if any, to the show cause notice
issued under section 14 and the materials available before it and
that to after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to 'the
person affected' and to the person who holds any money or
property as specified in the notice on behalf of 'the person
affected'. After recording the finding as envisaged under section
15(1), the Authorized Officer shall declare such money or
property or both to be confiscated to the State Government free
from all encumbrances subject to the provisions of the Act.
Therefore, the combined reading of sections 14 and 15 of the
2006 Act indicate as to who are to be noticed and given
reasonable opportunity of hearing in a confiscation proceeding. If
a person is neither 'the person affected' nor holds any money or
29
property or both as specified in the notice on behalf of 'the
person affected', there cannot be any necessity of either service
of notice on him or giving him an opportunity of hearing in the
proceeding.
In case of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal -Vrs.- State
of Bihar reported in (2016) 63 Orissa Criminal Reports
(SC) 426, it is held that the Chapter III of the 2006 Act
providing for confiscation of property or money or both neither
violates Article 14 nor Article 20(1) nor Article 21 of the
Constitution and that the procedure provided for confiscation and
the proceedings before the Authorised Officer do not cause any
discomfort either to Article 14 or to Article 20(3) of the
Constitution. It is further held while interpreting section 5 of the
2006 Act that State Government is only to be prima facie
satisfied that there is an offence under section 13(1)(e) of the
1988 Act and that the accused has held high public or political
office in the State. Textually understanding, the legislation has
not clothed the State Government with the authority to scrutinize
the material for any other purpose. The State Government has
no discretion except to see whether the offence comes under
section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act or not. Such an interpretation
flows when it is understood that in the entire texture provision
30
turns around the words "offence alleged" and "prima facie". It
can safely be held that the State Government before making a
declaration is only required to see whether the person as
understood in the context of the provision is involved in an
offence under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act and once that is
seen, the concerned authority has no other option but to make a
declaration. That is the command of the legislature and once the
declaration is made, the prosecution has to be instituted in a
Special Court and that is the mandate of section 6(1) of the
Orissa Act. It is further held that the same principles relating to
'prima facie evidence' are applicable to section 13 of the 2006
Act. What is required to be scrutinized by the State Government
that the offence exists under section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act
and thereafter it has to authorise the Public Prosecutor to make
an application. The application that is required to be filed in sub-
section (1) of section 13 of the 2006 Act itself postulates the
guidelines. The application has to be accompanied by an affidavit
stating the grounds on which the belief as regards the
commission of the offence and the amount of money and many
other aspects. An application has to be filed by the Public
Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor before he files an application
under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the 2006 Act, is required
31
to be first satisfied with regard to the aspects enumerated in
sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) obliges the Public Prosecutor
that requirements are satisfied for filing the application. In view
of the said position, it cannot be said that there is lack of
guidance. It is not that the authority has the discretion to get an
application filed through the Public Prosecutor or not. It is not
that a mere discretion is left to the Public Prosecutor. The
authority has only been authorised to scrutinize the offence and
authorise the Public Prosecutor and thereafter the Public
Prosecutor has been conferred the responsibility which is
manifestly detailed, and definitely guided, to file the application.
Thus scrutinized, the said provision does not offend Article 14 of
the Constitution. It is further held that the word "may" used in
section 13 has to be understood in its context. It does not really
relate to authorization of filing. To clarify that the authority does
not have the discretionary power to authorise for filing against
some and refrain from authorizing in respect of the other, it has
to be construed that the said word relates to the purpose, that
is, the application to be filed for the purpose of confiscation. This
is in consonance with the legislative policy, the scheme of the
Act and also the objects and reasons of the Act. The legislative
policy, as declared, clearly indicates that there should not be any
32
kind of discretion with the Government in these kinds of matters.
The fulcrum of the policy, as is discernible, is that delinquent
officers having disproportionate assets coming within the
purview of section 13(1)(e) have to face the confiscation
proceedings subject to judicial scrutiny as the rest of the
provisions do unveil. It is further held that there is no discretion
to pick and choose but to see the minimum requirement, that is,
the offence and the status and nothing beyond that. It is further
held by the Hon'ble Court that the State Government is only
required to scrutinize the "offence" and authorise the Public
Prosecutor for the purpose of filing an application for
confiscation. The Public Prosecutor, as mandated under section
13(2) is required to file an application indicating the reasons on
the basis of which the State Government believes that the
delinquent officer has procured the property by means of the
offence. Thus, reasons have to be stated in the application and it
has to be clearly averred that the property has been acquired by
means of the offence as defined under the Orissa Act. The
Authorised Officer is a Judicial Officer and he is required to afford
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the accused or any other
person operating the property on his behalf. Discretion is also
conferred on the Authorised Officer to record a finding whether
33
all or any other money or property in question have been
acquired illegally. The said authority can drop the proceedings or
direct confiscation of all or some properties. Affording of a
reasonable opportunity of hearing is not confined only to file
affidavits. When the delinquent is entitled to furnish an
explanation and also put forth his stand, he certainly can bring
on record such material to sustain his explanation. Confiscation
proceeding as provided under sub-section (3) of section 15 is
subject to appeal. In view of the scheme of the Orissa Act, there
can be no shadow of doubt that there is ample guidance in the
procedure for confiscation. It is not a proceeding where on the
basis of launching of prosecution, the properties are confiscated.
Therefore, the proceedings relating to confiscation cannot be
regarded as violative of Article 14 because conferment of
unchecked power or lack of guidance.
10. In this case, though it is the case of the appellant
that some of the properties shown in the schedule of the
confiscation application belonged to her late husband which were
purchased in the names of respondent nos.4 and 5, it is the
prosecution case that the respondent no.2 purchased such
properties in the names of his sons and it is a benami
transaction.
34
'Benami property' literally means a property without
any name. In a transaction, where the person who pays for the
property does not buy it under his/her name, is called benami
transaction. The person in whose name the property is
purchased is called benamidar and the property so purchased is
called the 'benami property'. The real owner of a benami
property is the man who purchases it in the name of someone
else. Directly or indirectly, the property is held for the benefit of
the person paying the amount. A benamidar has no real title to
the property, he is merely an ostensible owner thereof. The
Benami Transactions (prohibition) Act, 1988, was enacted to
prohibit benami transactions and right to recover property held
benami. Section 4 of the said Act deals with prohibition of the
right to recover property held benami.
It appears that the appellant Ahalya Padhi is not one
of the delinquents/opposite parties in the confiscation application
which was filed by the State of Odisha before the Authorised
Officer. The immovable and movable properties lists which are
mentioned in Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the application for
confiscation respectively do not indicate any such properties
stood recorded in the name of appellant. The persons in whose
names either the immovable or moveable properties stand, have
35
been arrayed as opposite parties in the confiscation proceeding
and they have been served with notices as required under
section 14 of the 2006 Act.
If it is the case of the appellant that she and her
husband late Anam Charan Padhi adopted the eldest son of their
daughter Smt. Bishnupriya Dash (respondent no.3) as their son
by virtue of a registered deed of adoption and some of the
properties as mentioned in the schedule of the confiscation
application were purchased by her husband late Anam Charan
Padhi in the names of their adopted son Subrat Kumar Padhi
(respondent no.4) and grandson Haragouri Prasad Das
(respondent no.5), then in the confiscation proceeding such
evidence can be adduced on behalf of the respondents by
examining the appellant as well as by proving the relevant
documents which would be considered by the learned Authorized
Officer in accordance with law before recording a finding whether
any of such properties have been acquired illegally by the
respondent no.2.
The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance
on the income tax scrutiny orders of late Anam Charan Padhi but
in case of Selvi J. Jayalalitha (supra), it has been held that the
income tax returns/orders passed thereon are not binding on the
36
criminal Court and the facts involved are to be proved on the
basis of independent evidence and that the income tax
returns/orders are only relevant and nothing further.
At this stage, it would be profitable to discuss the
principles enunciated in the citations placed by the learned
counsel for the appellant. In case of D.S.P., Chennai -Vrs.- K.
Inbasgaran reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
420, it is held as follows:-
"17......It is true that the prosecution in the
present case has tried its best to lead the
evidence to show that all these monies belonged
to the accused but when the wife has fully
owned the entire money and the other wealth
earned by her by showing in the income tax
returns and she has accepted the whole
responsibility, in that case, it is very difficult to
hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very
difficult to segregate that how much of wealth
belonged to the husband and how much
belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not
been able to lead evidence to establish that
some of the money could be held in the hands of
the accused. In case of joint possession, it is
very difficult when one of the persons accepted
the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused
has not been prosecuted and it is only the
husband who has been charged being the public
37
servant. In view of the explanation given by the
husband and when it has been substantiated by
the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses
who have been produced on behalf of the
accused, coupled with the fact that the entire
money has been treated in the hands of the wife
and she has owned it and she has been assessed
by the Income Tax Department, it will not be
proper to hold the accused guilty under the
prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation
appears to be plausible and justifiable. The
burden is on the accused to offer plausible
explanation and in the present case, he has
satisfactorily explained that the whole money
which has been recovered from his house does
not belong to him and it belonged to his wife.
Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the
recovery of the unaccounted money. Since the
crucial question in this case was of the
possession and the premises in question were
jointly shared by the wife and the husband and
the wife having accepted the entire recovery at
her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband
guilty."
The decision placed by the learned counsel for the
appellant is in no way applicable to the present case in as much
as in the case in hand, both the husband (respondent no.2) and
wife (respondent no.3) have been charge sheeted and the
38
appellant who is the mother-in-law of respondent no.2 and
mother of respondent no.3 and her husband late Anam Charan
Padhi were not jointly staying with them. Moreover in the
reported case, the stage at which such observation was made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not arisen in the case and when
the appellant is not a party to the confiscation proceeding,
basing on some explanations given by her relating to
acquirement of some of the properties shown in the schedule of
the confiscation application, it would not be proper at this stage
to release the seized documents in connection with the
properties in favour of the appellant or to delete the
expenditures under certain headings from the purview of the
case.
In the case of M. Krishna Reddy -Vrs.- State
Deupty Superintendent of Police reported in (1992) 4
Supreme Court Cases 45, it is held as follows:-
"11. In support of the above contentions, the
appellant not only bases his claim upon the
documentary evidence i.e. the income returns
filed in 1982 before the search of the house of
the appellant and registration of the case but
also on the oral testimony of PW 27, the Income
Tax Officer. PW 27 testifies that the appellant's
wife Smt. Sulochana filed her Wealth Tax
39
Returns for the assessment years 1980-81,
1981-82 and 1982-83 on 26.8.1982 under Exs.
P-53 to P-55 with enclosures; that the
appellant's daughter Smt. Indira, wife of Dr.
Ravindra Reddy filed her wealth tax returns for
the same assessment years 1980-83 on August
26, 1982 under Exs. P-56 to P-58 and that the
appellant's son-in-law Dr. Ravindra Reddi filed
his income tax returns for the assessment years
1980-1983 on 27.8.1982 under Exs.P-61 to P-63
showing the lending of Rs.20,000/- to his father-
in-law. It is pertinent to note that the search in
the house of the appellant was conducted on the
strength of a search warrant issued on August
24, 1983, that is one year after the submission
of all the above wealth tax returns and income
tax returns for a consolidated period of three
years in 1982.
xx xx xx xx
13. The Trial Court has brushed aside this piece
of evidence on the ground that the daughter and
son-in-law, Dr. Ravindra Reddi had only little
experience during that period; that they had
submitted their income tax returns for a
consolidated period of three years in 1982 and
therefore the case of the appellant that he got a
loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Dr. Ravindra Reddi is
not acceptable. This reasoning is based on mere
conjectures or surmise. As repeatedly pointed
out earlier, the raid was in 1983 and so, there
40
could not be any conceivable reason even to
entertain any suspicion or surmise.
14. We are unable to appreciate that reasoning
and hold that the prosecution has not
satisfactorily discharged the expected burden of
proof in disproving the claim of the appellant.
Therefore, on the face of these unassailable
documents i.e. the wealth tax and income tax
returns, we hold that the appellant is entitled to
have a deduction of Rs.56,240.00 from the
disproportionate assets of Rs.2,37,842/-."
The factual scenario of the above cited case is
distinguishable inasmuch as all the immovable and movable
properties shown under the Schedule-A and B of the confiscation
application are in the names of the respondents either
individually or jointly and therefore, the income tax returns filed
by the appellant's husband and the scrutiny orders of the Income
Tax Authorities relating to acquirement of some of the properties
shown in the list of disproportionate assets, cannot be a ground
at this stage to release the seized documents in connection with
those properties in favour of the appellant. Clinching oral as well
as documentary evidence are required to be adduced not only in
the confiscation proceeding but also during trial of the
respondents nos.2 and 3 before the competent Court relating to
the acquirement of the properties by the husband of the
41
appellant backed by the income tax returns filed by him, which
are to be considered in accordance with law. Any observation
made in that respect at this stage would have a serious
repercussion on the confiscation proceeding as well as trial of the
respondents nos.2 and 3 and therefore, this Court desists from
making any roving enquiry on such aspects at this stage.
In the case of K. Veeraswami -Vrs.- Union of
India reported in (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 655, it is
held as follows:-
"75. In the view that we have taken as to the
nature of the offence created under clause (e), it
may not be necessary to examine the contention
relating to ingredient of the offence. But since
the legality of the charge sheet has been
impeached, we will deal with that contention
also. Counsel laid great emphasis on the
expression "for which he cannot satisfactorily
account" used in clause (e) of Section 5(1) of
the Act. He argued that that term means that
the public servant is entitled to an opportunity
before the Investigating Officer to explain the
alleged disproportionality between assets and
the known sources of income. The Investigating
Officer is required to consider his explanation
and the charge sheet filed by him must contain
such averment. The failure to mention that
requirement would vitiate the charge sheet and
42
renders it invalid. This submission, if we may
say so, completely overlooks the powers of the
Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is
only required to collect material to find out
whether the offence alleged appears to have
been committed. In the course of the
investigation, he may examine the accused. He
may seek his clarification and if necessary he
may cross check with him about his known
sources of income and assets possessed by him.
Indeed, fair investigation requires as rightly
stated by Mr. A.D. Giri, learned Solicitor
General, that the accused should not be kept in
darkness. He should be taken into confidence if
he is willing to cooperate. But to state that after
collection of all material the Investigating Officer
must give an opportunity to the accused and call
upon him to account for the excess of the assets
over the known sources of income and then
decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or
not, would be elevating the Investigating Officer
to the position of an enquiry officer or a judge.
The investigating officer is not holding an
enquiry against the conduct of the public servant
or determining the disputed issues regarding the
disproportionality between the assets and the
income of the accused. He just collects material
from all sides and prepares a report which he
files in the Court as charge sheet."
43
This decision no way helps the appellant inasmuch as
whether during course of investigation, the respondents nos.2
and 3 who were charge sheeted in the case, were given
opportunities by the Investigating Officer to account for the
excess of the assets over the known sources of income and if
not, in what way it has caused prejudice to those respondents,
are the matters which may be taken into account if specific plea
in that respect is taken by those respondents during trial. The
appellant who is not a party to the confiscation proceeding is
precluded from raising any such point at this stage nor this Court
is expected to deal with such contention.
In the case of Krishnanand -Vrs.- The State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (1977) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 816, it is held as follows:-
"26.......It is well settled that the burden of
showing that a particular transaction is benami
and the appellant owner is not the real owner
always rests on the person asserting it to be so
and this burden has to be strictly discharged by
adducing legal evidence of a definite character
which would either directly prove the fact of
benami or establish circumstances unerringly
and reasonably raising an inference of that fact.
The essence of benami is the intention of the
parties and not unoften, such intention is
44
shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily
pierced through. But such difficulties do not
relieve the person asserting the transaction to
be benami of the serious onus that rests on him,
nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures
or surmises as a substitute for proof (vide
Jayadayal Poddar -Vrs.- Mst. Sibi Hazra : (1974)
1 SCC 3). It is not enough merely to show
circumstances which might create suspicion,
because the Court cannot decide on the basis of
suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds
established by evidence..."
In the case in hand, at the appropriate stage of the
confiscation proceeding or trial, if evidence is adduced that even
though the property in question stands recorded in the name of
'X' but it is 'Y' who has purchased the property in the name of 'X'
or in other words, 'X' is not the actual owner of the property, the
same has to be considered and decided in accordance with law
and this is not the stage to give any finding in respect of benami
transaction particularly on the basis of a petition filed by a
person who is not a party to the confiscation proceeding.
11. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsels for the respective parties, I am of the humble view that
if the respondents take specific plea as taken by the appellant
and adduce relevant oral evidence through the appellant as well
45
as prove documentary evidence like income tax returns,
registered deed of adoption of respondent no.4 by the appellant
and her husband etc., the same shall be taken into account by
the learned Authorised Officer in accordance with law. Whether
some of the properties as mentioned in the schedule of the
confiscation application were purchased by late Anam Charan
Padhi can also be appreciated by the learned Court. Since none
of the properties as per the schedule appended to the
confiscation application stand recorded in the name of the
appellant and those properties, according to the prosecution are
very much material to be referred to in the confiscation
proceeding as well as in the trial of the respondents nos. 2 and 3
in the disproportionate assets case, at this stage, it cannot be
said that any of the properties as per the schedule of the
confiscation application has got any link with the appellant or her
late husband and the documents in connection with such
properties are to be released in favour of the appellant. It is also
not the stage to decide whether there is any perfunctory
investigation or perversity and defective investigation. It is
needless to say that if any such plea taken by the appellant is
taken by the respondents and the same is found to be correct by
the learned Authorised Officer after considering the relevant
46
materials available on record then such properties can be
excluded from the zone of confiscation.
Even though the learned counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on the show cause replies of the respondent nos.
4 and 5 where they have stated that they desire that the
documents concerning their properties to be returned to the
appellant but such show causes were filed on 08.01.2018 which
were much after passing of the impugned order dated
06.04.2017. The stand taken by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in
their show cause replies supporting the plea taken by the
appellant are to be meticulously examined by the Authorised
Officer and thereafter, the truthfulness or otherwise of such plea
taken can be assessed and finding can be recorded. Since
section 15 of the 2006 Act provides for reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the concerned parties, it is excepted that the
learned Authorised Officer shall afford such opportunities to the
respondents and then record any finding. The learned Authorised
Officer can also take a decision as to whether the seizure of
documents as per the schedule of the confiscation application
was proper and justified or not and make declaration as
envisaged under that section.
47
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the
considered opinion that the learned Authorised Officer has not
committed any illegality in rejecting the petition filed by the
appellant on 08.03.2017 as per the impugned order dated
06.04.2017 and therefore, I find no merit in this criminal appeal
which is accordingly dismissed.
13. It is made clear that anything said or any observation
made in this judgment shall not influence the mind of the
learned Authorised Officer to decide the confiscation proceeding
on its own merits. If any plea is taken by the respondents during
confiscation proceeding by filing show cause replies and the
evidence are adduced in that respect, the learned Authorised
Officer is free to decide the acceptability or otherwise of such
plea in accordance with law.
.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 05th September 2018/Pravakar/Sisir/Sukanta