SAILABALA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 17 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 (hereafter '2006 Act') challenging the impugned order dated 11.01.2016 of the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar passed in Confiscation Case No. 12 of 2014 in which the petition dated 08.01.2016 filed by the appellants for a direction to the prosecution to supply the copies of the documents described in Schedule -A and Schedule -B in order the enable them to file show cause has been rejected.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. D. P. Das that the appellants were arraigned as delinquents in the confiscation proceeding and were noticed to file show -cause as to why the properties as mentioned in Schedule -A and Schedule -B to the application under Section 13(1) of the 2006 Act shall not be confiscated to the State. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of the Criminal Case instituted against Sri Niranjan Choudhury, Ex -Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.6 of 2013. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not the accused in the said Criminal Case and they have no knowledge about the allegations leveled therein and their petition for supply of copies of the relevant papers and documents was rejected on the ground that those were already supplied to Sri Niranjan Choudhury which was neither proper nor justified.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das on the other hand contended that the appellant no.1 is the wife and the appellants nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of the delinquent Sri Niranjan Choudhury and since all the documents have been supplied to the said delinquent in T.R. Case No. 6 of 2013, there was no necessity to supply the documents again to the appellants and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.