Decided on November 15,1960

S.K.GHOSH Appellant


S.K.Sen, J. - (1.)This appeal Is directed against an order of Sri D. N. Chakladar. District Judge, 24 Parganas, dated 15-7-69 dismissing an application made by Shri S. K. Ghosh for payment of arrears of maintenance and current maintenance under the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance No. 38 of 1944.
(2.)The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Sri S. K. Ghosh along with certain other persons was proceeded against under Section 409/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of the Ordinance aforesaid his properties then estimated to be worth about Rs. 18,000,00 were attached. The criminal case ended in conviction of S. K. Ghosh on 31-8-49 The appeal to the High Court was dismiss-ed on 9-9-53 and the appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 12-12-56. Thereafter, on 10-1-57 the Government filed a petition before the District Judge. 24 Parganas, for taking action under paragraph 18 of the Ordinance of 1944 for forfeiture to the Government a portion of the property equal la value to the amount found to have been lost to the Government by the offence committed by Shri S K. Ghosh and also for realisation of the fine imposed on Shri Ghosh out of the residue of the attached property. It may be mentioned that in the judgment of the High Court which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the loss to the Government was found to be about Rs. 30,000,00. A fine of Rupees 45,000,00 was also imposed on Shri Ghosh in respect of the offence committed by him. In the proceeding under paragraph 13 of the Ordinance, the learned District Judge. 24 Parganas, passed an order on 22-3-58 stating that in terms of paragraph 13(3) of the Ordinance the amount of Rs. 30,000,00 together with the cost of attachment had first to be forfeited out of the property attached and thereafter the fine of Rs. 45,000,00 was recoverable from the residue of the property, and that for doing this, it was necessary that the cost of the attachment should be determined and the property should be valued. Accordingly, he directed the Receiver in charge of the attached properties to submit a report as to the cost of attachment including the cost of management, and also directed both the State of West Bengal and Shri S. K Ghosh to submit their estimates as to the value of the different items of properties attached, so that the court could proceed to value the property before passing the final order under paragraph 13(3) of the Ordinance.
(3.)Against the order of the learned District Judge dated 22-3-58, there was an appeal to this High Court being Criminal appeal No. 176 of 1958. The appeal was allowed by this Court on 20-8-58, and It was held that for certain reasons the order of the learned District Judge was bad An appeal from the order of the High Court has been filed before the Supreme Court by the State Government and that appeal is pending.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.