TANMAY KUMAR PARIJA @ PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P.(Crl.) Nos.693 to 695 of 2012 are the sons and the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No.696 of 2012 is the wife of Charu Chandra Parida, the accused in T.R. Case No. 10 of 2008. They have filed the respective writ applications challenging the notice of confiscation dated 21.4.2012 issued to each of them under Rule 14 of the Special Courts Rules in Confiscation Case No.2 of 2012 calling upon each of them to show cause as to the source of income out of which or by means of which they have acquired the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the petition enclosed to the impugned notice. Since identical question is involved in all the writ petitions almost on similar set of facts, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case is that on the allegation that Charu Chandra Parida, father of the petitioner in W.P.Crl. Nos.693 to 695 of 2012 and husband of the petitioner in W.P. Crl. No.696 of 2012 acquired and possessed huge assets, disproportionate to his known source of legal income by indulging in corrupt practices Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 1997 was registered against him and during course of investigation, raid was conducted on 15.5.1997 in different houses of the said Charu Chandra Parida and it was found that the total assets disproportionate to the income of Charu Chandra Parida was Rs. 28,54, 626.97 as on 15.5.1997. The said assets included immovable and moveable properties purchased/stood recorded in the name of the petitioners in the writ petitions. As petitioners could not be able to satisfactorily explain about their independent income and/source of acquiring the properties in their respective names as mentioned in Schedule A of the petition enclosed to the impugned notice, prayer was made for confiscation of the same on the allegation that the same were acquired by Charu Chandra Parida, the accused in T.R. Case No.10 of 2008 in the names of his sons and wife who had no source or sufficient source to acquire the said properties.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.693 of 2012 is that he is a Science Graduate. Due to dissension among the father on one hand and the mother and his brothers on the other, there was a family settlement in June, 1991 and accordingly deed of family settlement was prepared as per which he got a share in the family properties. After completion of study, he started the business of commission agent and truck brokerage with the aid and assistance of his maternal grandfather from the year 1991 and became an income tax assessee during the financial year 1992-93. His maternal grandfather being financially sound for the future benefit of the petitioner purchased a plot of land on 25.9.1979 in the name of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 25.9.1979. Thereafter the petitioner being desirous of starting hotel business entered into a deed of partnership with his mother, petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No.696 of 2012 which has been heard along with this petition. For construction of the hotel in the name and style "Trimurty", the partners applied for a loan of Rs. 7.00 lakhs from the Central Bank of India which was sanctioned on (sic).8.1996. The petitioner and his partner had not taken any financial aid and assistance from Sri Charu Chandra Parida, the accused in T.R. Case No. 10 of 2008. On the allegation of accumulation of disproportionate assets, vigilance raid was conducted against Charu Chandra Parida, there was search and seizure of hotel Trimurty under the partnership of the petitioner and Smt. Manjulata Parida. Challenging such search and seizure of the aforesaid hotel Trimurty, the petitioner filed O.J.C. No.7977 of 1997 for quashing of the search and seizure list prepared in connection with Cuttack Vigilance Misc. Case No.9 of 1997 after submission of charge-sheet against Charu Chandra Parida wherein while issuing rule nisi on 24.9.1998, this Court observed that before assessing the value of the immovable properties, the petitioner shall be served with notice. Even then the opposite parties did not notice the petitioner before assessing the value of the hotel, as directed by this Court in O.J.C. No.7977 of 1997 and valued the said immovable property as the property of Charu Chandra Parida even though the said Charu Chandra Parida is in no way concerned with the said property which was exclusively owned and acquired by the petitioner and his partner and the Authorised Officer issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Orissa Special Courts Act to the petitioner describing him as delinquent No.5 and stating that the same had been acquired in a disproportionate manner without any source of income and calling upon him to show cause although the petitioner is not an accused in the case instituted against Charu Chandra Parida. The contention of the petitioner is that if such confiscation proceeding is continued against the petitioner, he will be highly prejudiced and interest of justice will be defeated. The main ground for including the property of the petitioner is that the assets of the petitioner are disproportionate to his known source of income. Contention of the petitioner is that he is separate from his father Charu Chandra Parida and is carrying on business independently and is an income tax assessee. Referring to Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006, the petitioner has contended that the notice of confiscation in respect of the self acquired immovable property of the petitioner and the hotel which is property of the partnership is illegal, improper and is done with mala fide intention. Hence, he has prayed for quashing of the notice as well as the proceeding in Confiscation No.2 of 2012 so far as it relates to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No.694 of 2012 is that after becoming a Graduate in Mechanical Engineering, the petitioner started his own business in the name and style of M/s. Parija Auto Engineering Works and M/s. Parija Consultancy and is an income tax assessee since 1991-92. He got some land out of family partition and he also got some land from his maternal grand-father on which the market complex and hotel building are situated. The properties at SI. Nos.8 and 10 of Schedule A of the petitioner in Confiscation Case No.2 of 2012 are his self acquired property and should not be treated to have been acquired by the accused in T.R. Case No.10 of 2008. The petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No.695 of 2012 has pleaded that the properties mentioned at SI. Nos.5, 7 and 10 of Schedule A were his self acquired property purchased out of the income earned by him from tuition, part-time job and out of the land fell to his share in family settlement. He is an income tax assessee from the year 1992-1993. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the properties mentioned at SI. Nos.5, 7 and 10 of Schedule A were acquired by Charu Chandra Parida in the name of the present petitioner. Case of the petitioner in W.P. Crl. No.696 of 2012 is that she is the wife of the accused in T.R. Case No. 10 of 2008. That some time after marriage her relationship with her husband became strained and therefore she lived in her village along with her sons being separate from her husband and in the year 1975 she started Dairy firm by investing her Stridhan and became an income tax assessee in the year 1980-81. From her personal income she purchased some lands during the year 1987 and 1989 by virtue of two registered sale deeds without any financial help from her husband and constructed a building on plot No.973 from her savings. She also purchased a car by obtaining loan from the Urban Co-operative Bank, Cuttack and engaged the same in travel business. She also entered into a partnership with his younger son and started hotel business by finance advanced by Bank and investing some money from her savings. Item Nos.2, 3 and 10 of Schedule A are her self acquired properties and those were not acquired by means of offence by her husband in her name.