- (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.
The appeal, against the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, had been filed before this Court and is still pending as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 480/2005 which has been ordered to be heard along with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 505/2005, filed by Deep Chand.

It is contended that in view of the pendency of the appeal, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Ordinance 1944, the criminal proceedings against the applications have not been terminated. Therefore, the order of confiscation under Section 13 of the Ordinance 1944 could not have been made or on appeal having been filed, the order of confiscation, if already passed could not have been implemented until the criminal proceedings are terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Ordinance 1944. The fact about the pendency of the appeal is not in dispute.

In view thereof, it is urged that for the purpose of Ordinance, 1944, it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings against the applicants were terminated. Consequently, the order under Section 13, which has pre-condition that before it is invoked the criminal proceedings must have terminated could not have been passed.

Under the scheme of Ordinance of 1944, as per Sec. 3 where the State Government or the Central Government has reason to believe that any person has committed any scheduled offence, whether or not any court has taken cognizance of it, authorise the making of an application to the District Judge within local limits of whose jurisdiction, the said person ordinarily resides or carries on business, for attachment of the money or other property which the appropriate Government believes to have been procured by such person by means of the offence. If for any reason such money or property cannot be attached, other property of the said person of value as nearly as as may be equivalent to that ill procured property or money may be attached.

(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.
Notices are also required to be issued to other persons representing to the District Judge as having or likely to have any interest in the property of the persons to whom notices have been given.

Any person claiming interest in such property is entitled to file objection to continuance of attachment, even if no notice is issued to him.