RITA PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner is wife of Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad, a public servant. Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad is an accused in connection with Vigilance Police Station Case No. 24 of 2011 registered under Section 7/13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, the police have already submitted charge-sheet in the case on 02.03.2012. A notice was served against the petitioner vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 calling upon to explain the source of income and as to why the property standing in her name should not be confiscated to the State Government as the same was acquired by means of offence by her husband.

(2.) The petitioner has questioned the validity of that notice in this writ application on the ground that the petitioner is not an accused in the referred vigilance case, hence, entire confiscation proceeding is without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary as well as contrary to the provision of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner is not an accused and no declaration under Sec. 5 of the Act has been issued against the petitioner either as abettor or conspirator with her husband, prima facie, there is no material for issuance of notice vide Annexure-3.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department one of the respondents is that the FIR of aforesaid vigilance case vide Annexure-1 reveals that Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad, the then Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board was apprehended while accepting bribe and on search different records were seized from his house showing different deposits in his name as well as in the name of the petitioner and the daughter. He further submits that the petition under Sec. 13 of the Act for confiscation of the property was filed against both i.e. the husband of the petitioner who is co-accused of the referred case as well as this petitioner with specific averment that the property which is proposed to be confiscated was procured by the husband of the petitioner, in the name of the petitioner, from the source of offence. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is not an accused in the case, therefore, not liable to confiscation proceeding.