NAGA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present appeal preferred by appellant Naga Ram, who retired as Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnea and was also posted at the same place as Deputy Director of Education, against the order passed by the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court-II, Vigilance, Bhagalpur in Confiscation Case No. 5(c.c.) 2010/c.c.1/ 10 dated 27th July, 2011 by which the learned court below directed the movable and immovable properties worth Rs.1,81,77,499/-, said to be acquired by the appellant as public servant, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and acquired by commission of offence under Section 2(e) of Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be confiscated to the State of Bihar.

(3.) I need not go into the factual matrix of the case because the very order suffers from such incurable illegalities that the same has to be struck down. I have elaborately discussed the provisions of the Act in Shiv Shankar Verma & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar through Vigilance & Ors. (S.S. Verma for short) 2011(3) PLJR 813. I have clearly pointed out that Chapter 2 of the Act relates to the cognizance and trial of the offence defined and made punishable by the Prevention of Corruption Act which are the offences covered by the word 'offence' defined by Section 2(e) of the Act and the same has to be applied and enjoined by the Special Court to be presided over by a Judge, who is a serving officer belonging to the Bihar Superior Judicial Service or is/has been either a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. The provisions of Chapter 3 of the Act relate to confiscation of property and that jurisdiction is vested in the Authorized Officer which authority has been created by Section 2(b) of the Act. The procedures for confiscation of property as well as trial of a case have elaborately but separately laid down by the Act and I have considered those provisions and have elaborated upon them in paragraph 33 onwards of the judgment in S.S. Verma and it has clearly been pointed out by me as may appear from paragraph 38 of the Report that the two fora have separate judicial identity with varied functions guided by different procedures. One has to try the accusation of commission of the offence as defined by Section 2(e) of the Act while the other, i.e., of confiscation of property, arise out of an application filed under Sec. 13 of the Act.