3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have engaged a separate counsel for preparation of the show cause and to contest the proceeding and the documents mentioned in the petition dated 08.01.2016 are very much necessary for such preparation and denial of such documents will result in miscarriage of justice.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that it is just a tactics of the appellants to linger the proceeding and delay the conclusion of the confiscation proceeding. Learned counsel further submitted that in the meantime some witnesses have been examined.
5. Adverting to the contentions raised by the respective parties, it is seen that the appellants are the persons affected and they have been made opposite parties in the confiscation proceeding. They have been noticed by the Authorized Officer under section 14 of the 2006 Act and asked to file show cause as to why the properties under Schedule-A and Schedule-B shall not be confiscated to the State Government. I am of the humble view that it will be extremely difficult on the part of the appellants to file show cause without the documents being supplied to them. On perusal of the Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the petition which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the appeal memo, it indicates that those documents are the estimated cost of the buildings, documents relating investment in farm house, fixed deposits in the bank, L.I.C. policy, documents relating to detail calculation, of household articles, documents relating to gold ornaments, documents relating to purchase of jeep and Bajaj Chetak Scooter. In absence of furnishing those documents, it would not be possible to file an effective show cause and contest the proceeding properly.
6. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 11.01.2016 of the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar and direct the State-Applicant to furnish the documents to the appellants, if available in the case records as mentioned in Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the petition dated 08.01.2016 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
CRLA No. 48 of 2016
Decided On: 19.05.2016
Sailabala Choudhury and Ors.
Vs.
State of Orissa
Vs.
State of Orissa
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.K. Sahoo, J.
Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)40 Orissa
1. This is an appeal under section 17 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 (hereafter '2006 Act') challenging the impugned order dated 11.01.2016 of the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar passed in Confiscation Case No. 12 of 2014 in which the petition dated 08.01.2016 filed by the appellants for a direction to the prosecution to supply the copies of the documents described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B in order the enable them to file show cause has been rejected. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. D.P. Das that the appellants were arraigned as delinquents in the confiscation proceeding and were noticed to file show-cause as to why the properties as mentioned in Schedule-A and Schedule-B to the application under Section 13(1) of the 2006 Act shall not be confiscated to the State. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of the Criminal Case instituted against Sri Niranjan Choudhury, Ex-Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 6 of 2013. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not the accused in the said Criminal Case and they have no knowledge about the allegations leveled therein and their petition for supply of copies of the relevant papers and documents was rejected on the ground that those were already supplied to Sri Niranjan Choudhury which was neither proper nor justified.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das on the other hand contended that the appellant No. 1 is the wife and the appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of the delinquent Sri Niranjan Choudhury and since all the documents have been supplied to the said delinquent in T.R. Case No. 6 of 2013, there was no necessity to supply the documents again to the appellants and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have engaged a separate counsel for preparation of the show cause and to contest the proceeding and the documents mentioned in the petition dated 08.01.2016 are very much necessary for such preparation and denial of such documents will result in miscarriage of justice.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that it is just a tactics of the appellants to linger the proceeding and delay the conclusion of the confiscation proceeding. Learned counsel further submitted that in the meantime some witnesses have been examined.
5. Adverting to the contentions raised by the respective parties, it is seen that the appellants are the persons affected and they have been made opposite parties in the confiscation proceeding. They have been noticed by the Authorized Officer under section 14 of the 2006 Act and asked to file show cause as to why the properties under Schedule-A and Schedule-B shall not be confiscated to the State Government. I am of the humble view that it will be extremely difficult on the part of the appellants to file show cause without the documents being supplied to them. On perusal of the Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the petition which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the appeal memo, it indicates that those documents are the estimated cost of the buildings, documents relating investment in farm house, fixed deposits in the bank, L.I.C. policy, documents relating to detail calculation, of household articles, documents relating to gold ornaments, documents relating to purchase of jeep and Bajaj Chetak Scooter. In absence of furnishing those documents, it would not be possible to file an effective show cause and contest the proceeding properly.
6. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 11.01.2016 of the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar and direct the State-Applicant to furnish the documents to the appellants, if available in the case records as mentioned in Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the petition dated 08.01.2016 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
7. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned learned Authorized Officer to do the needful. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment