KAPIL MUNI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Writ Application has been preferred by Kapil Muni Rai for challenging the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer, who was adjudicating Confiscation Case No. 6 (cc) of 2010 and was also negating the objection raised before him that he did not have the jurisdiction as the properties, which were the subject matter of the confiscation case, were not located anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Court situated at Bhagalpur.

(2.) The Criminal Appeal arises out of order passed on 23rd July, 2011 by Special Court II, Vigilance, Bhagalpur, in the above noted confiscation case by which the learned Authorized Officer designated under Rule 9 of the Special Courts Rule, 2010 was directing the confiscation of the properties which were detailed in Schedules A and B of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act by the State of Bihar. It was alleged that the appellant was possessing the properties either in his own name or in the names of different persons, like, his wife and other close relatives. Properties were worth Rs.1,07,33,698/- only. The learned Authorized Officer directed the properties detailed in Schedules A and B of the petition to be confiscated and, accordingly, issued the direction to the District Magistrates both of Patna and Ara to take over possession of the properties covered by Schedules A and B of the application under Section 13 of the Act within 30 days of the service of the impugned order upon each of them.

(3.) So far as the writ application is concerned, after some argument and on being pointed out that in view of the Division Bench decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar versus State of Bihar,2011 1 PatLJR 1168 that it would not be fair that the same Judge was hearing the trial also who had adjudicated upon the petition under Section 13 of the Act in respect of the same delinquent Public Servant, the State Government came up with necessary notifications creating different jurisdictions for adjudication of petition under Section 13 of the Act as that was not going to prejudice the trial of the delinquent Public Servant. When there was no specific bar in creation of jurisdiction as the Bihar Special Courts Act was, in itself, sufficiently creating the trial procedure indicating the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence to try it, then it would not be necessary to revert back to the provisions of the Prevention of the Corruption Act as to point out that a particular Officer or a Court may not or may have the jurisdiction to proceed either with the trial or hearing of the petition under Section 13 of the Act.