SRIKANT PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 1.11.2013 passed by learned Special Judge II (Vigilance), Patna-cum-authorized officer in Special Case No. 8/2010 by which and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner, in terms of Rule 11(g) of the Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 for taking assistance of any agency for valuation of cost of construction of the building, was rejected. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 81/2009 was registered against the petitioner and others for possessing property disproportionate to his known source of his income and thereafter, a petition under Section 13 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed before the authorized officer in respect of property including a building of the petitioner. The aforesaid building was valued at Rs. 10,67,532/- by the Technical Cell of Vigilance Department. Notice under Section 14 of the Act was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why property in question should not be declared to have been acquired by means of offence and be confiscated to the State Government. Petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice stating therein that the valuation given by the Technical Cell of Vigilance Department in respect of the above stated building was inflated. Petitioner got the building valued by registered income tax valuer and stated that building in question was worth Rs. 6,99,655.43. Petitioner filed a petition under Rule 11(g) of the Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rule') but the learned authorized officer rejected the aforesaid petition passing the order dated 15.4.2013 against which petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 23110/2013 before this court and a Bench of this court disposed of the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 23110/2013 vide order dated 11.9.2013 holding that the petitioner has at least been able to make out a case with regard to non-supply of details of computation with regard to valuation of the house in question and Vigilance while arriving at a particular point with regard to valuation, is obliged to disclose the exact details with regard to each component and how it arrived at the final figure. It was also observed in the said order that if the above stated details, if not already on record of the case, shall be submitted within a week from the date of passing the above stated order to authorized officer and copy shall be handed over to the petitioner but if the same is already on record, copy of relevant documents be handed over to the petitioner within the same period. It was further observed that the petitioner shall have a chance to file an appropriate rejoinder within the next ten days and after the period for submission of rejoinder by the petitioner, the authorized officer shall fix a date of hearing within the next one week and also pass final orders positively within two weeks thereafter. It was further observed that no indulgence will be given to either side with regard to the time frame fixed by this court and the authorized officer may thereafter, pass an appropriate order keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 11(g) of the Rule. The said Bench also observed that the said order may not be considered to prevent or restrict the authorized officer under the Act in proceeding in the matter with regard to the other issued which are at the stage of argument.

(2.) After the above stated order dated 11.9.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23110/2013, Vigilance supplied relevant documents to the petitioner and thereafter a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the court of authorized officer. Learned authorized officer having heard the parties passed the impugned order dated 1.11.2013 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for taking assistance of the third party for valuation of the house under Rule 11(g) of the Rules. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order arguing that valuation report of technical cell of Vigilance Department in respect of the building in question is based on arbitrary selection of parameter and even after supply of relevant documents, it is not clear as to on Which basis Technical cell of Vigilance Department valued the aforesaid building. It is further contended by him that petitioner got the building in question valued from an independent registered valuer of the Income tax who based his valuation report on the plinth area rate as well as item rate as prescribed by scheduled rate of the Department of Building Construction. It is further contended by him that there was substantial difference between valuation arrived at by the Technical Cell of Vigilance Department and by independent registered valuer and therefore, it was incumbent duty of the authorized officer to take assistance of the third party but learned authorized officer, without considering the aforesaid fact, rejected the prayer of the petitioner passing the impugned order which is not in accordance with law.