SHAILENDRA SHUKLA,J. - (1.)The appellant - Ompraksh Vishwapremi has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 (hereinafter for brevity will be referred as "the Act of 2011") against the order dated 28.08.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (Authorized Officer), Indore in Special Case No.04/2016, in which while considering the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor under Rule 10(1)(2)(3) of the M. P. Special Court Rules, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity will be referred as "the Rules of 2012), wherein the right to furnish the reply by the appellant has been rejected considering to be time barred.
(2.)Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Patwari at Tehsil Lalpura, District Ujjain on 16.09.2011. On that day, a raid was conducted at the house of the appellant, which is situated at 20, Baghpura, Sanwer Road, Ujjain and offence under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him and after the investigation, charge-sheet under the same section was submitted before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. Thereafter, on 02.08.2014, proceedings under the provisions of the Rules of 2012 was initiated, consequent to which a declaration was made under Rule 6 and simultaneously, an application under Section 13(1) of the M. P. Special Courts Act, 2011 was submitted by the prosecution agency for confiscation of the dis-proportionate assets before the Special Court constituted under the M. P. Special Courts Act, 2011 presided over by the Authorized Officer. This application under Section 13(1) of the Act of 2011 was submitted on 26.07.2016, but the reply was submitted by the appellant only on 14.08.2018.
(3.)The appellant submits that the reason filed for the delay was bonafide, which was that he had not been provided with the CD of the search conducted during raid and therefore, had to file an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. Simultaneously, an application for correction in the check period was also filed. However, bonafides of the appellant were not considered by the Courts below and he was denied the right of submitting his reply by the impugned order, which is perverse and contrary to law. It is prayed that the reply of the appellant may be taken on record so that the appellant may be able to submit his defence.