PRAMODINI SAHOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal under Sec. 17 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as the 'the Act') is at the behest of the appellant challenging the impugned order dtd. 14/1/2016 passed in Confiscation Case No.04 of 2015 by the court of learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in a proceeding initiated pursuant to an application under Sec. 13 of the Act vis-"-vis confiscation of the schedule properties, whereby, an application to drop it was declined and rejected.

(2.) In fact, the confiscation proceeding is in terms of Sec. 13(1) of the Act with the notice to the appellant as well as two others including her husband against whom the Vigilance Department submitted a chargesheet under Ss. 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he stood convicted by a judgment dtd. 13/2/2015 in connection with T.R No.05/40 of 2014/2012 of the court of learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar. The application under Sec. 13 of the Act was filed by the Public Prosecutor for confiscation of the immovable and movable properties morefully described under the schedule 'A' and 'B' for having been acquired by means of the offence committed by opposite party No.1. As a result, Confiscation Case No.04 of 2015 was registered and therein, the appellant was summoned to show cause as to why the schedule subjects held in her name shall not be confiscated. In response to the notice received, the appellant moved the application with a request to the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar to drop the proceeding on various grounds, however, it was not entertained rather disposed of by the impugned order dtd. 14/1/2016. According to the Public Prosecutor, the appellant to be a housewife having no independent source of income during the check period and therefore, the schedule property immovable as well as movable held by her have been acquired by opposite party No.1 and hence, liable for confiscation under law. However, the appellant, besides the grounds stated, also challenged the issuance of impugned notice under Sec. 13(1) of the Act and pleaded for closure of the proceeding. But then, the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar held that since a notice has been issued to the appellant, as to the veracity of the claim in respect of the schedule properties, which stand in her name and liable for confiscation under the Act is to be taken up during enquiry. The learned court below considered it inappropriate to examine the contention of the appellant as it would depend on a full-fledged enquiry followed by a direction to the Public Prosecutor to furnish the list of witnesses for examination and evidence from the side of the State with the liberty for the appellant to submit her show cause as well before the date fixed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 14/1/2016, the appellant preferred the appeal principally on the ground that the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar could not have initiated any such action, morefully when, she is not a public servant nor held any high public office within the meaning of Rule 2(e) of the Odisha Special Courts Rules, 2007 (in short 'the Rules')and that apart, was not made an accused and subjected to face trial before the Special court and furthermore, when notice under Sec. 14(1) of the Act contemplates a proceeding against opposite party No. 1 only. Since such a question has been raised by the appellant as to the tenability of issuance of notice and action under the Act, the same is to be examined by the Court.

(3.) Heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.K Pani and Mr. N. Moharana, learned counsels for the Vigilance Department.