Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.23110 of 2013 ====================================================== Shri Kant Prasad S/O Sri Dudhnath Prasad Resident Of Village- Niranjanpur, P.S- Kachehwan, District- Rohtas At Present Resides At Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.S- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s The State Of Bihar through the Special Public Prosecutor, Vigilance, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, Advocate For the State-Vigilance : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kr. Pandey and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 7 11-09-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsels for the Vigilance. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) is for quashing the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by the Authorised Officer in Special Case No. 8 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 81 of 2009 by which an application under Rule 11 (g) of the Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 (hereinafter Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23110 of 2013 (7) dt.11-09-2013 2/6 referred to as the ‘Rules’) has been rejected. The petitioner was proceeded against by the Vigilance for possessing properties disproportionate to his known sources of income and the house of the petitioner was included in the list of such assets and valuation by the Vigilance was made at Rs. 10,67,532/-. The said report was submitted to the Authorised Officer in December, 2010. The petitioner filed his defence on 17th January, 2011 in which at paragraph-27 he had stated that the valuation given to the Vigilance was inflated and the house was actually valued at a lesser amount. Subsequently it appears that the Vigilance has filed its reply on 04.04.2011. The petitioner then filed an application under Rule 11 (g) of the Rules on 09.04.2013 which has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned has been passed only on the erroneous premise that the petition filed by the petitioner was only by way of dilatory tactics. Learned counsel submits that the delay assigned on his part is not correct inasmuch as the arguments were going on and only after the petitioner also got his house valued by an authorized person, he made a formal objection under Rule 11 (g) of the Rules. It is submitted that The Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is a special Act and a stringent Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23110 of 2013 (7) dt.11-09-2013 3/6 Act and thus the safeguards in the said Act and the Rules have to be followed in every detail so as to ensure that there is no misuse and the person against whom the provisions are invoked is not prejudiced otherwise. It is submitted that the properties/assets of the accused can be confiscated prior to the main trial, by way of summary proceeding, as envisaged in the Act and the Rules and the petitioner having the only house of which the value is disputed, in the event of valuation of the Vigilance being upheld, stands to be confiscated and the petitioner and his family ultimately shall be on the road without having any other place for dwelling. Learned counsel submits that Rule 11 (g) of the Rules is a safeguard to the accused that in the event he contests the valuation, the Authorised Officer can take assistance of any State Government or Central Government agency or any other officer or person technically qualified as it may deem fit and proper. In the present case, it is submitted that even as per the report of the Income Tax Department which is an agency of the Central Government, the valuation of the house in question is more than Rs. Three Lakhs less than what has been valued by the Vigilance. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that even if the valuation which has been done by the private valuer at the behest of the petitioner is not taken into consideration, the report of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23110 of 2013 (7) dt.11-09-2013 4/6 Vigilance vis-a-vis the report of the I.T. Department, difference being of over Rs. Three Lakhs, the Court ought to have got revaluation done by any authority or agency which it deemed fit and proper. This not having been done, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, has caused him serious prejudice and is also likely to result in irreparable loss and this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has the power to pass any order to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance opposes the application and submits that the delaying tactics on the part of the petitioner is writ large in the proceedings and cannot be explained away. It is further submitted that the application itself is both misconceived and premature in the sense that during final arguments, which are going on, the petitioner has an opportunity to place his defence by way of leading evidence and also getting various documents exhibited in accordance with law so that it may be used as an evidence and assist the Authorised Officer in arriving at a conclusion with regard to the valuation. It is submitted that valuation submitted by the Vigilance is not sacrosanct in the sense that it is also open to ultimate acceptance by the Authorised Officer after being proved in accordance with law. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23110 of 2013 (7) dt.11-09-2013 5/6 Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submits that he is handicapped to present his case or properly oppose the valuation of the Vigilance in absence of details of computation being given to him so as to give him an opportunity to contest the actual valuation. Upon considering the rival contentions in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the laches or delay on the part of either of the parties, this Court feels that the petitioner has at least been able to make out a case with regard to non-supply of the details of computation with regard to valuation of the house in question. The Vigilance, while arriving at a particular amount with regard to valuation, is obliged to disclose the exact details with regard to each component and how it has arrived at the final figure. These details, if not already on record of the case, shall be submitted within a week from today to the Authorised Officer and copy shall be handed over to the petitioner. If the same is already on record, copy of the relevant portion be handed over to the petitioner within the same period. The petitioner shall have a chance to file an appropriate rejoinder within the next ten days. After the period for submission of rejoinder by the petitioner, the Authorised Officer shall fix a date of hearing within the next one week and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23110 of 2013 (7) dt.11-09-2013 6/6 also pass final orders positively within two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that no indulgence will be given to either side with regard to the timeframe fixed by this Court. The Authorised Officer may thereafter pass an appropriate order keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 11 (g) of the Rules. This 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 issues which are at the stage of argument. Accordingly, the application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anjani/-