RAMENDRA @ RAMAN DHULDUE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of M. Cr. C. No. 3981 of 2012 (Ashok Dhuldhue V/s. State of M.P.) as both petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. raise common question of law. Applicants in both petitions are two of the persons against whom applications under Section 13(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Vivesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 (Act No. 8 of 2012) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] have been moved by the Public Prosecutor for confiscation of the property under Section 15(3) of the Act. For our purpose in these cases, it is suffice to say that on 18.12.2011 applicant's residential house was raided which unearthed huge benami properties procured by means of income earned through 'criminal misconduct' as per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A case has been registered in the Police Station, State Economic Offense Bureau, Bhopal. It is not disputed before us that the State Government has issued the Declaration under Section 5 of Act so as to attract the provisions of the Act for trial of offence by the Special Court established under the Act.

(2.) An application under Section 13 of the Act was made by the Public Prosecutor for the confiscation of properties. It is available on record as Annexure P 1. Notice of the said application has been served upon the applicant, who is an affected person. Applicant sought an explanation and clarification regarding procedure to be adopted by the Special Court. Learned Special Judge, by the order impugned rejected the application. Hence this petition.

(3.) Heard the counsel for applicant at length. He submitted that Special Judge was bound to explain the procedure and the remedies available under the Act. He further submitted that it is necessary to inform the applicant at the out set so that he can plan a road map to fight out frivolous and unfounded allegations made against him. It was also argued that raid for the check period was conducted on 18.12.2011 whereas the Act came into force subsequently, therefore, provisions of the Act could not be made applicable retrospectively to take away vested right. In support of contention he referred to decisions which have been quoted by the Special Judge in the order impugned.