SMT. BHANUMATI DAS @ DEVI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a proceeding under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Criminal Law (Amendment Acts/ Ordinances, 1944 and Section 29 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 challenging an order passed by the District & Sessions Judge Dhenkanal involving Crl. Misc.Case No.2 of 2010 and rejecting an application at the instance of the present petitioner, further also challenging the maintainability of an application at the instance of State Vigilance Department under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts/Ordinances, 1944 requesting therein for attachment of the schedule properties indicated therein arising out of Sambalpur Vigilance PS. Case No.51 dated 29.11.1999 (T.R. Case No.226 of 2007) pending in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack along with an ad interim order of attachment following Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts/Ordinances, 1944.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.51 of 1999 was registered under Section 12 (2) read with 13 (i) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner's husband being a public servant, employed in the Office of the Dhenkanal Collectorate under the Revenue Department on the allegation that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and that he had acquired property in the names of his family members. One Sri B.C. Dash, the then Inspector Vigilance, Angul Unit Office was directed to investigate into the said F.I.R. and has claimed that Sri B.C. Dash, Investigating Officer involving the case for all purposes. During pendency of the trial of the above Vigilance P.S. Case, the Director-cum-D.G. and I.G. of Police, Vigilance and Ex-officio Special Secretary to Govt. General Administration (Vigilance) Department, Orissa, Cuttack moved an application before the State Government seeking approval to take recourse under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts/ Ordinances, 1944 in respect of certain property which the petitioner claimed to be recorded owner and in possession vide his letter dated 3.3.2010. Considering the application, State Government in General Administration (Vigilance) Department acceding to the request accorded the necessary authorization by order of the Governor of Orissa dated 17.3.2010 specifically authorizing the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case to make an application/affidavit, verify/sign before the appropriate Court for attachment of the said properties.

(3.) Referring to the application under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts/Ordinances, 1944 involving Cri. Misc Case No.2 of 2010 arising out of Sambalpur Vigilance PS. Case No.51 of 1999. Sri Debasis Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that for the provisions contained in Section 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts/Ordinances, 1944 and for the request of the concerned authority and the grant of permission of the competent authority specifically authorizing the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case to make an application etc., to a Court of the local limits whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides for attachment of the scheduled properties, the application under Section 3 and 4 appearing at Annexure-4 ought to have been filed by the Investigating Officer itself and for the application at Annexure-4 being filed by Sri Sheshadev Nayak working at the filing point of time as Inspector of Police (Vigilance), Dhenkanal, the application laws not sustainable in the eye of law. Referring to the contents of the documents vide Annexure-3 and 4 and a decision of this Court reported in the case of Khetrabasi Das v. State, 1991 (II) OLR 136, Sri Panda, learned Senior Counsel contended that the learned District and Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the legal aspect of the matter thereby wrongly rejected the objection of the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the petition at the instance of Sri Sheshadev Nayak and urged this Court for interfering the impugned order and stating aside the same.