RANJAN KUMAR KAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by learned Authorized Officer, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case. No.1 of 2011 rejecting the application filed by the appellant to drop the confiscation proceeding.

(2.) THE fact, as borne out from the appeal memo and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant given rise to filing of the appeal in short is that while the appellant was working as Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Angul, his house was searched on 12.7.2001 by the Vigilance Personnel in his presence. On 10.9.2001 F.I.R. was lodged against him and as the allegations contained therein revealed a cognizable case Bhubaneswar Vigilante P.S. case No.31 of 2001 was registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act') and the case was investigated into on due authorization. On completion of investigation it was allegedly found that during the period 1.1.1987 to 12.7.2001 the appellant acquired assets beyond his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.45,64,244/ -, which he could not satisfactorily account for., so charge sheet was submitted against him on the allegation that he committed offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Ultimately, the case was registered as TR. No.152 of 2006 of the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar and he faced trial before it. After coming into force of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as Act 2006), the Government in the Home Department in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Act, 2006 made a declaration vide Notification dated 31.5.2008 published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette to the effect that the State Government was of opinion that there was prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act by the appellant since he accumulated properties disproportionate to his known sources of income by resorting to corrupt means and further declared that the said offence would be dealt with under the Act, 2006. Accordingly, TR. Case No.152 of 2006 was transferred to the Special Court, Bhubaneswar and it was renumbered as T.R. Case No.2 of 2008. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted an application under Section 13(1) of the Act, 2006 to the Authorized Officer, Bhubaneswar for confiscation of the assets and properties of the appellant. On the basis of the aforesaid application, Confiscation Case No.1 of 2011 was registered against the appellant and his wife. Both the appellant and his wife were summoned to appear before the Authorized Officer and to show cause. As it appears, after entering their appearance in the aforesaid confiscation case on 9.5.2011, the Advocate for the appellants filed a petition before the Authorized Officer to drop the confiscation proceeding on the ground that the appellant did not hold high public office during most of the check period and that as per the provision under Section 4 of the Act, 2006, the case relating to the appellant was not covered under the said Act. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants the learned Authorized Officer vide order dated 9.5.2011 rejected the petition on the ground that earlier two similar petitions filed by the appellant and his wife had been rejected. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 9.5.2011, the appellant has filed the present appeal as stated earlier.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further submits that the aforesaid confiscation proceeding is against all canons of fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The provision contains in Chapter -III of the Act, 2006 not only mocks at fair trial, but also knocks down fairness. Mockery is writ large as the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 14 is not acquired by means of the offence shall be on the person affected.