SURESH UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal under Section 11 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 takes exception to order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jabalpur dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the appellant as to tenability of an application under Section 3 of 1944 Ordinance filed at the instance of the prosecution for attachment of moveable and immoveable property. The preliminary objections were raised in response to notice under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Ordinance and under sub-Section (4) of Section 4 thereof.

(2.) Relevant facts briefly are that, on 20.6.2019 an F.I.R was registered against the appellants bearing Crime No. 25/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (b) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the Economic Offences Wing, Unit Jabalpur. The allegations are that during the check period of 6.8.1978 to 31.08.2014 the appellant No. 1 had amassed moveable and immovable properties in his own name and in the name of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who are his wife and son. The details of immovable properties and moveable properties are brought on record, annexed with Annexure A/2 and as A-1, B, C and D. Whereas A-1 and A-2 respectively records 62 and 81 immoveable properties, B, C and D record Jewellery, gold and silver, cash and the amount in Bank and the list of Vehicles, respectively.

(3.) These properties are sought to be attached by the prosecution under the provisions of Ordinance 1944. That, an application under Section 3 came to be filed by the Inspector/Investigating Officer, EOW Unit, Jabalpur on the strength of authorisation under Section 3 of Ordinance 1944 and with Section 5 (6), 18 A (2) of 1988 Act (as amended vide Amendment Act No. 16 of 2018), by the Director General, EOW, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.