High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLA No. 490 of 2025 Nirakara Rout …. Appellant Ms. Bi s. Bini Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha (Vig.) …. Respondent R Mr. Sri Sr. Standin rimanta Das tanding Counsel CRLA No. 134 of 2018 Nirakara Rout …. Appellant Ms. Bi s. Bini Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vig.) …. Respondent R Mr. Sri Sr. Standin r. Srimanta Das tanding Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 09.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means means of this Appeal, the Appellant has a has assailed the orders dated 20.0 20.03.2025 and 23.09.2024, passed by t d by the learned Authorised Officer Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar, and ha and has sought to have the prayer rej yer rejected therein allowed in the present ap ent appeal. CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 1 of 10 2. The factua factual matrix of the case is that the App e Appellant is a retired Senior Ge or Geologist who was serving in the Gro e Ground Water Remote Sensing D sing Division at Bhubaneswar. He was im as implicated in Cuttack Vigilance ilance P.S. Case No.19 of 1996 for pos or possession of disproportionate a nate assets, leading to the initiation of p of proceedings under Sections 1 ons 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Pre e Prevention of Corruption Act, 19 ct, 1988. Upon investigation, a charge shee e sheet was filed and the matter w tter was tried as T.R. Case No. 21/43 of 43 of 2012/2002 before the Special pecial Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar. swar. The charge alleged acquisitio uisition of disproportionate assets by the y the Appellant beyond his known known sources of income. During the pende pendency of the criminal proceedin ceedings, the State filed an application und on under Section 13 of the Orissa S issa Special Courts Act, 2006, seeking the c g the confiscation of certain propertie operties allegedly acquired through corrupt m rrupt means. The Authorised Office icer issued notice to the Appellant on 1 on 12.03.2013, initiating confisca nfiscation proceedings. On 05.02.2018, t 018, the Special Judge, Special Co ial Court, Bhubaneswar convicted the Appe Appellant in TR Case No. 21/43 of /43 of 2012/2002 under Sections 13(1)(e) a )(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, 1988, and sentenced him accordingly. The y. The Appellant preferred an appea appeal, CRLA No. 134 of 2018, before this C e this Court. le While , the said appeal was pending, the the Appellant the approached the A the Authorised Officer, Special Court, ourt, seeking to adduce additional tional evidence under Section 243 Cr.P.C. to P.C. to justify the sources of income come and acquisition of the properties. The s. The Authorised Officer, vide order order dated 23.09.2024, rejected the applica application on the ground that it la it lacked specificity and was filed only d only to delay proceedings. The . The Appellant filed another application un ion under Section CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 2 of 10 243 Cr.P.C. on 03. on 03.10.2024, detailing the witness list and st and reasons for examination. This . This too was rejected by the Authorised orised Officer by order dated 20.03. 20.03.2025, citing that permitting such evid ch evidence post- conviction would would be a futile exercise. Aggrieved by ed by the orders dated 23.09.2024 .2024 and 20.03.2025, the Appellant has has filed the present appeal, CR al, CRLA No. 490 of 2025, challenging the ing the refusal to summon witnesses tnesses and to adduce evidence for the def he defence at the confiscation proce roceedings. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. B. Mis B. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant ellant, contended that the impugned ugned orders dated 23.09.2024 and 20.03.2 0.03.2025 passed by the Authorised horised Officer rejecting the Appellant’s a nt’s applications under Section 243 n 243 Cr.P.C. are arbitrary and contrary to the statutory rights available to ble to the Appellant. She argued that, unde t, under Rules 11 and 14 of the Oris e Orissa Special Courts Rules, 2007, the pr the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and and the Indian Evidence Act are app re applicable to confiscation proc proceedings, unless inconsistent with h the parent statute, and therefo therefore, the Appellant’s request to summon ummon witnesses under Section 243 n 243 Cr.P.C. was maintainable. The learn learned Counsel further submitted t itted that the confiscation proceedings are s s are separate and independent of the of the criminal trial, though they arise out o e out of the same set of facts, and t and that the standard of proof and scope o cope of evidence differ. On this ba his basis, it was asserted that the Appellan pellant was well within his rights rights to present fresh evidence and call d call additional witnesses includin cluding some prosecution witnesses to reb to rebut findings and clarify error errors in asset computation that were were allegedly overlooked during during trial. Mr. Mishra also claimed pr ed prejudice on account of not b not being allowed to present legitimate imate sources of CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 3 of 10 income, such as re h as rental proceeds, scholarships, and gifte d gifted property, which were not c not considered by the State authorities. rities. Lastly, the learned counsel nsel challenges the confiscation itself tself in lieu of pendency of App f Appeal and further submitted that the at the delay in confiscation proce proceedings was attributable to the Stat e State, not the Appellant, and tha nd that unless the impugned orders were se ere set aside, the Appellant would ould suffer serious prejudice, especially cially when the conviction itself is 4. Mr. S. D tself is under challenge in CRLA No. 134 of 34 of 2018. S. Das, learned counsel for the State State (Vigilance) opposed the appea appeal by contending that the confiscation p ation proceedings under the Orissa S rissa Special Courts Act, 2006 are a direct an rect and statutory consequence of th of the Appellant’s conviction for offences ffences under the Prevention of Cor of Corruption Act, 1988. He submitted tha ted that once the Appellant was con as convicted by the Special Court on 05.0 05.02.2018, the confiscation of pro of properties acquired through corrupt mean t means followed as a matter of law of law under Section 13 of the Special Cour l Courts Act. Mr. Das further argued argued that the applications under Section 2 tion 243 Cr.P.C., filed long after after the conviction, intended only to ly to delay the confiscation proce process, and lack any substantive merit. He rit. He asserts the Appellant had am ad ample opportunity during the trial t trial to produce evidence and exam d examine witnesses, and having failed to d d to do so, could not now seek to ek to re-open or supplement the defenc defence through collateral proceedi oceedings. Mr. Das also emphasised that the at the Authorised Officer rightly fou tly found the applications to be vague, specu , speculative, and procedurally unwa unwarranted at the post-conviction stage. stage. He added that the confisca nfiscation proceedings, being civil in n l in nature and summary in scop scope, cannot serve as a platform to r to relitigate or CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 4 of 10 challenge findings ndings already rendered in a criminal trial, trial, and hence, no illegality or pro or procedural lapse exists in the impugned o ned orders. 5. The presen present Criminal Appeal, i.e., CRLA No. 49 No. 490 of 2025, has been preferred eferred by the Appellant challenging the o the orders dated 23.09.2024 and 2 and 20.03.2025 passed by the learned rned Authorised Officer, Special C ecial Court, Bhubaneswar, whereby the A the Appellant’s applications filed u filed under Section 243 Cr.P.C. seeking sum ng summoning of witnesses were r ere rejected. In addition, the Appellant pellant has also questioned the val he validity of the cognizance taken in the c the confiscation proceedings under under the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 , 2006. It may be noted that the App he Appellant’s earlier appeal, CRLA No. 13 No. 134 of 2018, challenging the jud the judgment of conviction dated 05.02.201 2.2018 passed in T.R. No. 21/43 of /43 of 2012/2002 by the learned Special Jud ial Judge, Special Court, Bhubanesw baneswar, remains pending consideration ation before this Court. During th ing the course of hearing, learned couns counsel for the Appellant submitt ubmitted that the prayer in the present CR ent CRLA is not confined to proce procedural issues in the confiscation proc proceeding, but substantially aims aims to undermine the confiscation itself, itself, by seeking to lead further evid er evidence. It is, therefore, argued that adm at admitting such evidence in the con the confiscation proceeding may affect the m t the merits of the conviction appeal ppeal as well. 6. The Appe Appellant filed two successive applicat plications under Section 243 Cr 3 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of c of confiscation proceedings initia initiated after his conviction. The First A irst Application, dated 05.12.2023, .2023, sought the issuance of summons to w s to witnesses in defence of the App he Appellant’s claim regarding lawful acquis acquisition of the properties. Howev owever, the application did not specify th ify the names of CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 5 of 10 the proposed wit d witnesses or the reasons for their ex eir examination. Consequently, the ly, the learned Authorised Officer rejecte rejected the said application by ord by order dated 23.09.2024, holding it to be a to be a vague and unsubstantiated pe ted petition, evidently filed to delay the p the proceedings, particularly in ligh in light of the fact that the Appellant had al had already been convicted. The Se he Second Application, dated 03.10.2024 .2024, was filed subsequent to the to the rejection of the earlier petition. Thi n. This time, the Appellant provide rovided a detailed list of witnesses along w ong with specific reasons for seekin seeking their examination. Nevertheless, t less, the learned Authorised Office Officer, by order dated 20.03.2025, dism 5, dismissed the application once a once again, holding that the Appellant hav nt having already been convicted, th ted, there existed no scope to reintroduce or uce or expand his defence through ough the confiscation proceeding. The or he order further recorded that all at allowing such a request would only only result in protraction of the m f the matter without serving any useful purp l purpose. 7. It was fair as fairly admitted by learned counsel for the for the Appellant during the hearing earing that the defence now sought to be to be introduced was never raised raised during the trial, and that no appl application for summoning such such witnesses was made at any point p oint prior to the conviction dated 0 ated 05.02.2018. Notably, by that time, the e, the Appellant had already filed filed CRLA No. 134 of 2018, and the c the confiscation proceedings unde under the Orissa Special Courts Act Act were also underway. 8. For better better appreciation of the case at hand, it is , it is imperative on the Court to exa t to examine the scope and application of Sec of Section 243 of the Code of Crimin Criminal Procedure, that reads as – CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 6 of 10 on to enter ; and if the Magistrate d upon his any process ess for the tion, or the thing, the unless he refused on of vexation e and such The accused shall then be called upon to his defence and produce his evidence; and i sed puts in any written statement, the Magis file it with the record. (1) The upon his de accused pu shall file it (2) If the accused, after he had entered upon If th nce, applies to the Magistrate to issue any pro defence, ap ompelling the attendance of any witness fo for compel ose of examination or cross-examination, o purpose of uction of any document or other thing, production istrate shall issue such process unless Magistrate iders that such application should be refuse considers t round that it is made for the purpose of vex the ground lay or for defeating the ends of justice and or delay or nd shall be recorded by him in writing; ground sha ided that, when the accused has cross-exam Provided th ad the opportunity of cross-examining or had th ess before entering on his defence, the attend witness bef uch witness shall not be compelled under of such w on, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that section, un ssary for the ends of justice. necessary f (3) The witness on require tha witness in deposited i The Magistrate may, before summoning ess on an application under Sub-Section ire that the reasonable expenses incurred ess in attending for the purposes of the tri sited in Court. examined ining any attendance under this d that it is oning any ection (2), rred by the the trial be 9. The afores aforesaid provision provides the procedural dural mechanism by which an accus accused may lead defence evidence during t uring the trial of a warrant case. The . The provision, by its very structure, applies applies only prior to the conclusion usion of trial, and is intended to enable the le the accused to establish his defen s defence before the court reaches a findin finding of guilt. Once a judgment o ment of conviction has been rendered, as in , as in the present case, the trial stand l stands concluded, and the stage for adduci adducing defence evidence stands c nds closed. The law does not contemplat mplate a second opportunity to re to reconstruct or supplement the defenc defence through collateral proceedi oceedings such as confiscation. More impo importantly, the CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 7 of 10 confiscation proce proceedings are not a retrial, and cannot be not be converted into a forum for for introducing material which was con s consciously or negligently omitted omitted at the stage of trial. 10. The conten contention that the opportunity to examine w mine witnesses in the confiscation p tion proceedings is central to the Appellan pellant’s defence and necessary to r ry to rectify alleged omissions made during during trial does not merit accept acceptance at this stage. The Appellant ellant was duly represented during during the trial in T.R. No. 21/43 of 2012/20 012/2002 and had sufficient opportun portunity to adduce evidence and contest th test the findings. The plea that the c t the confiscation proceedings may serve as rve as a forum to supplement or rev or revisit the defence post-conviction is mis is misconceived. Such a course wo rse would not only defeat the object of t ct of the Special Courts Act but w but would also amount to reopening matt matters already concluded in trial n trial. If any aspect of income or property roperty valuation was overlooked o ked or misappreciated, it is for the appella appellate court in CRLA No. 134 of 134 of 2018 to examine the same in the con the context of the conviction itself. itself. This Court cannot permit a frag a fragmented or collateral attempt ttempt to alter the effect of the convictio nviction through evidence introduc troduced belatedly in a parallel proceeding eeding, which is clearly an afterthou terthought. 11. Moreover, eover, the Appellant’s present challenge app e appears to be a collateral attack o k on the legality of the confiscation p tion proceedings without actually se ally seeking or obtaining relief against the st the conviction, which continues to ues to stand unless set aside in CRLA No. 1 No. 134 of 2018. The confiscation ation proceeding, it must be reiterated, is ed, is a statutory consequence of th of the conviction recorded under the Pre he Prevention of Corruption Act. O ct. Once a conviction is recorded by the Sp the Special Court CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 8 of 10 for offences under under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the ct, the jurisdiction of the Authorised orised Officer under Section 13 of the Ori e Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 2006 is triggered. The object of the legis legislation is to enable the State to tate to promptly recover and vest in itself an tself any property deemed to have have been acquired through corrupt mean t means, without requiring a separa separate adjudication of guilt. Thus, the con confiscation is not the result of a lt of a fresh judicial inquiry, but flows direct directly from the finding of guilt rec uilt recorded by the competent criminal cour l court. It is not a retrial or an adjud adjudication on culpability but a consequen sequential step to vest such tainted p inted property in the State. The claim that e that examination of witnesses in the in the confiscation stage would materially erially impact the pending appeal is peal is therefore unfounded, as the defen defence of the Appellant must be ust be assessed primarily within the scope scope of CRLA 018. No. 134 of 2018. 12. According ordingly, this Court is of the view that the c t the confiscation proceedings, bein , being a statutory consequence of the the conviction, cannot be challeng hallenged in a fragmented or collateral mann l manner without first securing relief g relief against the conviction itself. Furthermor hermore, the examination of new witnesses esses at the post- conviction stage stage is not permissible in law, and t and the learned Authorised Officer Officer, in rejecting both applications under S nder Section 243 Cr.P.C., acted wel ed well within jurisdiction and in accordanc ordance with the legal framework. . The findings that such applications w ions were vague, belated, and inten intended to delay the proceedings or reo or reopen issues already concluded luded during trial, do not warrant interferen rference. In view of the above, the p , the present Appeal is devoid of merit. CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 9 of 10 13. Since the e the prayers made in the present appeal, peal, i.e., CRLA No. 490 of 2025, 2025, have been duly considered and answe answered herein, this Court refrains frains from expressing any opinion on the m the merits of the statutory appeal fi peal filed in CRLA No. 134 of 2018, whi , which shall be heard and adjudica judicated in accordance with law on its own s own merits. 14. In light o ight of the above discussion, this Cour Court finds no illegality or infirm infirmity in the impugned orders dated 23.0 d 23.09.2024 and 20.03.2025 passed passed by the learned Authorised Offic Officer, Special Court, Bhubanesw aneswar. Accordingly, CRLA No. 490 of 2 0 of 2025 stands
Decision
disposed of. A.K.Pradhan/Bijay (Chittaranjan Da an Dash) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Jul-2025 17:31:32 CRLA No. 490 of 20 CRLA 134 of 2018 f 2025 & Page 10 of 10