MD INKESHAF ALL Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous appeals are filed one by the husband and another by the wife Both are filed against the orders of the District Judge, Khammam and arise out 0 P No. 3 of 1978 on his file.

(2.) The husband was an accountant of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District. He worked there for nearly a period of seven years from 9-11-1970 to 9-8-1975 as Accountant and from 9-8-1975 to 31-5-1977 as Head Clerk. Later he was promoted as Accountant of the Office of Conservator of Forests, Adilabad. While he was working as Accountant in the office of the Conservator of Forests he was kept under suspension pending inquiry into charges of Criminal breach of trust in respect of certain properties entrusted to him by the Government. The allegation was that while he was working as Accountant of Divisional Forest Office, Kothagudem, he had committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the properties entrusted to him. The value of the property with respect to which he alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust was estimated to exceed Rs. 2.25,000/- Acting under the authority of the Government of A P contained in its Memorandum dated 28th January, 1978, the Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam had filed an application under section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, for attachment of the properties of the husband of equal value Among these properties thus sought to be attached there were two houses alleged to have been constructed by him but kept in the name of his wife The criminal case under section 409 IPC had been registered against the husband which was then pending investigation The Divisional Forest Officer therefore approached the District Court to attach the properties mentioned in his petition filed under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 This application of the Divisional Forest Officer had been opposed both by the husband and more by his wife The husband's contention was that the charges were false and made recklessly, while the wife contended that the properties belonged to her. In support of their respective cases, evidence was let in. The lower court had directed the attachment of the properties including the above said houses. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against these orders by the lower court

(3.) Nothing was seriously argued in this case either on behalf of the husband or on behalf of the wife on the question as to whom the properties belonged. There is clear evidence to sustain the finding of the lower court that the properties belonged to the husband and not to the wife. I accordingly proceed to examine the validity of the legal contentions of the appellant on the basis that the properties belonged to the husband