BENOY KRISHNA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents to release the properties under attachment besides those sought to be forfeited under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (1944 Ordinance) and further to determine the value of the properties sought to be forfeited, to release those properties not required after adjusting the same with the amount to be realised.

(2.) THE relevant facts which are to be noticed are that one Shanto Kumar Mitra (S. K. Mitra) and three others were tried together in a criminal case for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the I. P. C. (the Penal Code). The trial Court found that total amount of Government Money defalcated by the accused persons as a result of the conspiracy was Rs. 17,95,374/9/9. S. K. Mitra was found guilty for both under the substantive charges and also conspiracy. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 409 of the Penal Code and was also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under other sections of the Penal Code, which were to run concurrently. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of rupees five lakhs. He filed an appeal in this Court and in that appeal an application was filed on behalf of the State for enhancing the sentence. This Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the prayer of the State in part by increasing the fine from rupees five lakhs to rupees fifteen lakhs.

(3.) AS ordered by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 163 of 1978(R), the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, treated the application filed on 3 -1 -1976 as an application under Section 13(5) of 1944 Ordinance and by order dated 30th June, 1980 rejected the same. The petitioners thereafter filed this application. The main contention of the petitioners before the Judicial Commissioner, as appears from paras 10 and 25 of the order, was that the State Government was entitled to pray for forfeiture of the properties to the extent of the valuation of rupees seventeen lakhs and odd as found in the criminal case, and the fine. Rest of the properties in excess of this were to be released. Two other contentions were also made before the Judicial Commissioner, namely, recovery of fine was barred by limitation and 1944 Ordinance was no longer a good law. The Judicial Commissioner rejected all the contentions.