NANARAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS PETITION IS FILED BY SRI NANA RAO WHO IS A RETIRED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HAVING SERVED BOTH IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND IN the CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. IT IS AVERRED THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC interest LITIGATION AND ON THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN W. P. NO. 17433 OF 1997 DIRECTIONS TO INVESTIGATE OFFENCE OF DISPROPORTIONATE assets PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13 (L) (E) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION act WAS INITIATED AGAINST SRI S. BANGARAPPA WHICH ENDED IN THE CENTRAL bureau OF INVESTIGATION PLACING A CHARGE-SHEET AGAINST HIM IN C. C. NO. 47 OF 1999. IT IS FURTHER AVERRED THAT SINCE THE ACCUSED IN THE SAID CASE IS trying TO ALIENATE PROPERTIES AND IF IT IS NOT STOPPED, EVEN IF THE CASE ends IN CONVICTION AND THERE IS AN ORDER OF FORFEITURE OF HIS ILLEGALLY obtained ASSETS, THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE FORFEITED AND WHEREFORE, THE petitioner GOT ISSUED NOTICE DATED 5-3-2002 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE first RESPONDENT-UNION OF INDIA REQUESTING IT TO MAKE AN APPLICATION under SECTION 3 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, 1944 (IN short, THE ORDINANCE' ). HE ALSO MADE REPRESENTATION TO THE LOKAYUKTA, additional DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHIEF secretary, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AS PER ANNEXURES-C TO F REQUESTING THEM TO MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE, authorising THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR ATTACHMENT OF THE PROPERTIES IN SOME CASES AND ALSO IN ALL CASES FALLING UNDER the OFFENCES MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE ORDINANCE BUT NO ACTION has BEEN TAKEN IN THE MATTER AND WHEREFORE, THIS WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN filed FOR THE FOLLOWING PRAYERS: (A) WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE ACTION under SECTION 3 (1) OF THE ORDINANCE IN ALL CASES IN WHICH THEY HAVE committed OFFENCES REFERRED TO IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE ORDINANCE, PARTICULARLY AGAINST SRI S. BANGARAPPA AND SRI KARIMLAL AND OTHERS OR IN the ALTERNATIVE. (B) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO examine FEASIBILITY OR NECESSITY TO INITIATE ACTION UNDER SECTION 3 (1) OF the ORDINANCE AGAINST THOSE ACCUSED PERSONS WHO HAVE COMMITTED OFFENCES FALLING UNDER THE SCHEDULE TO THE ORDINANCE. (C) FOR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE including THE AWARD OF COST.

(2.) HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD.

(3.) THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED THAT the PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, ARE STILL IN FORCE AND THE SAME HAVE been AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE prevention OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF AN APPLICATION FOR ATTACHMENT OF THE PROPERTIES secured BY COMMITTING THE OFFENCE IS NOT MADE BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE as PER SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE, EVEN IF THE CASE ENDS IN CONVICTION AND forfeiture OF THE PROPERTY THE SAME CANNOT BE EXECUTED AS THE ACCUSED would ALIENATE THE PROPERTIES DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE AGAINST them AND WHEREFORE IT IS NECESSARY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE AN application UNDER SECTION 3 (1) OF THE ORDINANCE, IN PARTICULAR AGAINST SRI s. BANGARAPPA AND SRI KARITNLAL AND MANDAMUS MAY ALSO BE ISSUED TO initiate ACTION UNDER SECTION 3 (1) OF THE ORDINANCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED persons WHO HAVE COMMITTED OFFENCE FALLING UNDER SCHEDULE TO THE ORDINANCE.