M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) CRIMINAL Appeal Nos. 151 and 154 of 2001 relate to appeals which are filed by the appellants Smt. Sangeeta Sinha and Sanjay Sinha challenging the order dated 2.3.2000 whereby the ad interim order of attachment of properties made on 18.2.1997 has been made absolute under Sec. 5 (3) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. Criminsl Appeal No. 383/01 would relate to the appeal filed by the appellants Smt. Sangeeta Sinha and Sanjay Sinha challenging the consequential order passed by the court below on 25.5.2001 whereby Receiver has been appointed in terms of section 9 (2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. These three appeals can be disposed of by this common order, as they relate to the same appellants and same properties.
(2.) THE short facts are as follows: Appellant Sanjay Sinha is an accused in R.C Case No. 47(A)/96 and other cases. He has been convicted in R.C Case No. 19(A)/96, which is one of the Fodder Scam cases. According to the prosecution, appellant Sanjay Sinha, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched with other accused persons, had defalcated Government of Bihar, now Jharkhand, to the extent of Rs. 257.82 Crores and from that ill -gotten money, he acquired a large number of moveable and immoveable assets in his name and also in the name of his wife, Sangeeta Sinha, another appellant, and the investigation disclosed that properties acquired in the names of both Sangeeta Sinha and Sanjay Sinha have actually been purchased from the ill -gotten money defrauded by the appellant, Sanjay Sinha. The criminal case was only against Sanjay Sinha in the Fodder Scam cases. but Sangeeta Sinha, his wife, was made a party in the case under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance. 1944, as she has no own source of income to purchase those properties which have been acquired in her name. For recovery of the Government money, the proceeding was to be initiated against both of them. Accordingly, the court below, on the application filed by C.B.I, passed an ad interim order of attachment against the appellants and attached their properties by the ad interim order dated 18.2.1997. Thereafter at the request of C.B.I, final order has been passed by the court below on 2.3.2000. Before final order was passed, the court below gave opportunity to both of them to file show cause. Appellant Sangeeta Sinha filed her show cause claiming that the properties attached are her self -acquired properties. However, during the course of enquiry, she did not choose to produce any document in support of her claim that the properties actually belong to her. In the meantime, the interim order passed earlier was challenged by the appellant, Sanjay Sinha, raising the jurisdiction of the court, but the same was rejected by the court below through order dated 6.1.2000. Finally, as no evidence was produced by the appellant, Sangeeta Sinha, and other appellant in support of their claim, final order was passed on 2,3.2000 confirming the ad interim order of attachment. Thereafter in pursuance of the final orders passed on 2.3.2000 and on 25.5.2001 on the application filed by C.B.I requesting for appointment of Receiver to take over the properties, the court below, after giving opportunity to the appellants to file objection, passed order holding that appointment of Receiver is necessary to look after those properties. These two orders namely 2.3.2000 and 25.5.2001 are the subject -matter of challenge in these appeals. The main grounds urged by the counsel for the appellants challenging the order passed on 2.3.2000 and 25.5.2001 are that those orders have been passed without giving proper opportunity to the appellants, infringing principles of natural justice and that the orders are illegal in view of the fact that there is no jurisdiction for the trial court to pass those orders on account of violation of sec. 3(3) and 5(2) of the Ordinance, 1944.
(3.) WHILE opposing the points urged by the counsel for the appellants, counsel for the respondent -C. B.I through counter -affidavit as well as written submission stated that opportunities have been given and the jurisdiction point has already been decided by the trial court earlier on 6.1.2000 which was never challenged by them and as such, appeals are liable to be rejected.;