MAGGI BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Panney Singh learned counsel for C.B.I. on whose application the impugned order was passed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contends that the order was passed by the Trial Court on 2.6.2005 on application moved by the prosecuting agency, C.B.I. under Section 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter called Ordinance 1944) for confiscating the property attached under the provisions of the said Act to the Government. The learned trial Judge has allowed the application of the respondent for confiscating the property belonging to the applicants, which was under attachment order.

(3.) SEC. 4 deals with interim attachment of such property or money without delay unless the District Judge is prima facie satisfied for reason to be recorded in writing that no ground exists for believing that the person in respect of whom application is made has committed any scheduled offence or that he has produced thereby any money of other property. Simultaneously with issuing interim order of attachment u/s 4(1), the District Judge is required to issue notice of such application accompanying with copy of applicant's affidavit and evidence, if any, recorded, to the person whose money or other property is sought to be attached. Such notice shall also be accompanied with copy of the order of interim attachment.