PREMANANDA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in G. R. Case No. 15 of 1995 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has filed this application under Section 482, Cr.'P. C. to quash the order passed by the Special Judge on 10-5-2002 directing for attachment of the fixed deposit in the name of the accused and his family members to the tune of Rs. 36,00,000/- (thirty six lakhs) and making it as first chance in favour of the Income Tax Department for realisation of the arrear tax dues.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that he is facing the aforesaid criminal prosecution on the allegation of disproportionate assets. The trial is in progress. The Income Tax Department, on the basis of determination of such disproportionate assets by the Vigilance Department, made assessment of the properties of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,03,44,354/- (one crore three lakhs forty four thousand three hundred fifty four). The allegation against the petitioner is that he has acquired properties worth Rs. 43,85,842.73 p. (Forty three lakhs eighty five thousand eight hundred forty two and seventy three paise). He also advanced a contention in the court below, that the appeal against the assessment is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench, Cuttack and the said Tribunal has stayed the appeal awaiting disposal of the Vigilance Case. Therefore, petitioner argues that when the claim of the Income Tax Department is based on the factual allegation raised by the Vigilance Department, therefore, the aforesaid fixed deposit could not be attached and made a first charge on the Income Tax Department and if that is done, then it amounts to pre-juding the issue.

(3.) Though learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance appeared and argued but he said that the Vigilance department being not the applicant, he has nothing to submit in favour or against the impugned order. None appeared for the Income Tax Department even if repeated adjournments were granted with due intimation to the learned Standing Counsel.