M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) THE appellants are Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj and her husband, Dr. Junul Bhengraj. The appellants were facing trial in R.C. Case No. 35(A)/1996 along with some other cases on the allegation that second appellant, Dr. Junul Bhengraj, as Regional Director of Animal Husbandry Department, defalcated huge amount to the tune of several crores from the Government Exchequer during the period January, 1991 to March, 1996 and acquired moveable and immovable assets in the form of house, plot of land, bank account, cash etc. in his name and in the name of his wife, another appellant.
(2.) C .B.I. during the course of investigation, found that appellant, Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj, held immoveable property worth Rs. 5,58,121.00 and moveable property worth Rs. 2,96,928.53 in her name and further found that appellant, Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj, held considerable part of disproportionate assets in her name knowingly that these assets were acquired by her husband, Dr. Junul Bhengraj, through dubious and questionable means. She also allowed purchase of land in fictitious names and signed in fictitious name as Anna Bhengraj and Anna Ordiya and signed blank papers through which huge amount of illegally earned money of her husband were deposited and withdrawn. On the application filed by the C.B.I. an ad interim order of attachment had been passed on 25.2.1997 and subsequently the same was made absolute on 20.1.2000 by the Court below. Claiming that the order dated 20.1.2000 was an ex parte order of attachment, application has been filed by the appellants before the same Court for setting aside ex parte order dated 20.1.2000. This application had been dismissed by the order dated 26.8.2002 in Misc. Case No. 95/2002. Against this order, this appeal has been filed by both the appellants.
(3.) THIS appeal has been vehemently -opposed by the counsel for C.B.I. mainly on the ground that earlier ad interim order of attachment had never been challenged and hence the present appeal is not maintainable on the ground that under the provisions of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, right of appeal is available under Sec. 11 of the Ordinance. As per the said provision, the appeal can be filed under Sec. 4 or 6 or against any order passed under Sec. 8 or 9 of the Ordinance. In the present case, ad interim order of attachment passed under Sec. 4 of the Ordinance, which was appealable, was admittedly not challenged. But now the order by which the ad interim order of attachment has been made absolute is as per Sec. 5 of the Ordinance, which is not appealable.;