Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The contention of Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold: 1) the trial Court failed to consider that the second petitioner is the owner of the property covered under item Nos.8 to 11, 2) the trail Court, without considering the scope of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 (hereinafter referred to as, the Ordinance), dismissed the petition on assumptions and presumptions, and 3) if the order passed by the trial Court is allowed to stand, certainly, it would amount to abuse of process of law; therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Per contra, Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, the learned Special Standing Counsel for the ACB, State of Telangana, submitted that the application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either on facts or in law. He further submitted that the petitioners are asking for release of the sale deeds, which per se cannot be ordered, without seeking relief of withdrawal of the attachment. The learned Special Standing Counsel, with humility, submitted that on some occasions the learned Special Judges are passing orders in a routine manner without considering the scope and object of the Ordinance as if the petitions for release of the properties attached under the Ordinance are maintainable under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.PC.

3. This court has come across the orders wherein the learned Special Judges allowed the petitions filed under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.PC only, directing release of the properties attached under the provisions of the Ordinance, which are not in accordance with law.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is apt to refer the historical background of the Ordinance and other relevant Statutes. Any Ordinance promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution of India shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament; the said Ordinance shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from its reassembly unless approved by both the Houses of Parliament. It should be noted that the Ordinance was promulgated by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 72 , as set out in the ninth schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 72 emphasises that, any ordinance made under this section is subject to the like disallowance as an Act passed by the Indian legislature, and may be controlled or superseded by any such Act. Therefore, unless and until it is repealed or superseded by the Parliament, it should be in force. Sections 18(3) and 8(2) of the Indian Independence Act refer to the continuation of the Government of India Act, 1935. Latter, by virtue of Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Ordinance have been in force, however, with certain modifications. The Ordinance was promulgated with an avowed object of preventing disposal or concealment of money or other property procured by means of offences specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance (Scheduled Offences) and to confiscate the same in favour of the Government. To put it in a different way, the Ordinance was promulgated in order to discourage public at large, more particularly bureaucrats, to acquire or procure property or money by indulging in Scheduled Offences. This Ordinance is one of the preventive measures aimed at curbing the menace of corruption. The Ordinance, which is a substantive in nature, is dealing with the money or other property suspected to be tainted with the Scheduled Offences, pending disposal of the trial and it is in force as on today. There is no conflict between the provisions of the Ordinance and that of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as both of them are independent and operate in different spheres.

24. In this case, release of documents is sought under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., besides Sections 4 and 8 of the Ordinance. If the property produced before the court is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient to do so, the court may release the property by invoking Section 451 Cr.P.C. The question of speedy and natural decay of property attached does not arise in this case; therefore, Section 451 Cr.P.C., is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

25. If the seizure of property by the police is reported to the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate may order the property to deliver to such person on imposing certain conditions under Section 457 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer produced the documents before the Special Court long back. The documents in question are not in the custody of the Police; therefore, Section 457 Cr.P.C., has no application to the facts of the case on hand. It appears that for release of the properties attached under the provisions of the Ordinance, petitions are being filed purely under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., before the Special Court. The petitions being filed exclusively under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., are not maintainable, in view of specific provision (Section 13) contained in the Ordinance.