GAGAN BIHARI DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal heirs of late Somanath Das who was an accused in T. R. Case No. 10 of 1996 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur have filed this application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 21-12-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for release of the properties attached.

(2.) As it appears from the record late Somanath Das was in Government service and while posted at Sohela his quarter was searched on the allegation that he had acquired properties dis-proportionate to his known sources of income. During such search, the Vigilance Department seized movable properties which include cash, ornaments and bank deposits. A case was registered against late Somanath Das for commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act which ultimately gave rise to T. R. Case No. 10 of 1986 in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur. While the matter was pending before the learned Special Judge, Somanath Das expired on 1-12-1991. The death of the accused was brought to the notice of the Court and by order dated 29-2-1992 the following order was passed by the learned Special Judge.

(3.) Sri Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the case having been registered on the allegation of accusation of dis-proportionate properties and such question having not been determined by the learned Special Judge due to the death of the accused, there will be no scope for confiscation of the properties and the only remedy available in such circumstances is to release the properties seized and attached in favour of legal heirs. In support of his contentions, it is submitted that there is no decision directly on the point but he referred to some decisions where offence was under the Indian Penal Code. Sri D. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department on the other hand, submitted that since the properties were seized and attached on the allegation that the accused had acquired the same by illegal means and such properties were dis-proportionate to his known sources of income, even if the accused has died during pendency of trial, the property can only be released in favour of legal heirs of the deceased-accused after an enquiry as envisaged under S. 457(2), Cr. P. C.