SNEHASINI DEVI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner namely Bibhuti Bhusan Beura, a Govt. official faced trial for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act on the allegation that during the check period from 1-1-1988 to 29-4-1997 he illegally amassed assets both moveable and immoveable to the tune of Rs. 4,76,965.45 paise, disproportionate to his known sources of income in his name and in the name of petitioner in T.R. No. 11 of 2002 before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar. After conclusion of trial, he was found to have amassed assets to the tune of Rs. 4,69,876.26 paise, disproportionate to his known sources of income illegally, and as such, was convicted for the aforesaid offence and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three months more vide judgment and order dated 27-11-2009. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2009 before this Court, which is sub-judice. In the meantime, Mr. Susanta Kumar Panigrahi, Inspector, Vigilance Division, Bhubaneswar, being duly authorized as per law, filed a petition under Sec. 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance, 1944") supported by an affidavit before learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 2011 with prayer to attach the properties as mentioned in the Schedule of the petition till disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2009 pending before this Court. Pursuant to filing of the said petition, learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar issued notice to the petitioner, wife of Bibhuti Bhusan Beura to file show cause to the said petition by 9-9-2011. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with prayer to quash the entire proceeding in M.C. No. 2 of 2011.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain such application after conclusion of trial of T.R. Case No. 11 of 2002. As per his submission, the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction an accused under the P.C. Act resides can entertain such a petition against him as envisaged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance, 1944. In the present case, since the husband of the petitioner resides ordinarily at Bhubaneswar, the District Judge, Bhubaneswar is competent to act under Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance, 1944. Of course, as per the provision contained under Section 5(6) of the P.C. Act, the Special Judge (Vigilance), while trying an offence punishable under the P.C. Act can exercise the powers and functions exercisable by District Judge under the Ordinance, 1944. In the present case, the trial having been concluded since long, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar became functus officio to deal with the matter. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in the case of Dr. V.K. Rajan v. State of Kerala, 2008 CrLJ 909.

(3.) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State (Vigilance) contents that as per Section 2(2) of the Ordinance. 1944, in the present case, the criminal proceeding shall be terminated on disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2009. Since it has not yet been disposed of, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) is empowered to deal with the petition filed under Section 3 of the Ordinance, 1944.