HOOR BANO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the present appellants being daughters and son of Habibullah Khan against whom a confiscation roceeding under Section 13 of the Orissa Special Courts Act (for short, 'the Act') has been initiated can be added as parties or given an opportunity to have their say.

(2.) APPELLANT 's case, in short, is this. There was vigilance raid in the residential premises of their father, wherefrom, cash amounting to Rs. 7,58,000/ - and gold ornaments weighing about 75 tolas were seized. Claiming major part of the seized cash and gold ornaments to be their own, the appellants approached the Authorised Officer for impleading them as parties and to afford them an opportunity of being heard. Their such prayer having been resisted by the State hearing was taken up and, on conclusion whereof, the impugned order was passed rejecting their prayer with an observation that under the Act it is the accused against whom the case has been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act should only be impleaded as a party in the confiscation proceeding and that unlike the Code of Civil Procedure there is no provision in the Act for adding or striking off parties. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate if a person while holding high public or political office acquires money or other properties by means of corruption, a confiscation proceeding may be initiated against him and on being noticed he shall be called upon to indicate the source of his income, earning or assets out of which he acquired such money or property. Thereupon, the authorised officer before whom the proceeding is initiated shall pass orders after giving an opportunity of being heard regarding all or any other money or the properties in question that are alleged to have been acquired illegally. Provisions of the Act as referred to above are not restricted to mean that it is only that person against whom the proceeding has been initiated shall be heard and no other. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to Sub -Section (2) of Section 14 which provides that if any money or, property is held by any other person, on behalf of the notice a copy of such notice under Sub -Section (1) shall also be served . upon such other person, The, legislature in its wisdom has made such provision keeping in mind that money or property which according to the State Government held by such other person on behalf of the notices cannot be confiscated without giving an opportunity to that person to have his say. A confiscation proceeding being civil in nature the authorised officer is not denuded of jurisdiction to implead any person as a party to such proceeding if he claims that any of the properties in dispute belongs to him. Authorised Officer cannot presume that whatever allegations have been made by the State regarding ownership of the property are true and so, the proceeding can only continue against that person named in the confiscation proceeding and none others. Supposing in course of hearing, it is brought out in evidence that certain properties belong to some others who are not parties to the proceeding, then can it be said that the authorised officer has the power to confiscate the same without hearing the true owners ? To this, my answer is emphatically no the reason being that it is the settled principle of law that no one shall be condemned unheard. In this context, I would profitably refer to what has been observed by the apex Court in the case of Smt. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, where their Lordships held that: 'Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invent law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be: does fairness in action demand that an opportunity' to be heard should be given to the person affected ?'