M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Fodder Scam Cases, allowing the petition of the respondent -CBI making the ad interim order of attachment dated 30.8.1996 absolute.
(2.) THE appellant no.1 was facing trial in R.C Case No. 19(A)/96 -Pat. Ultimately he was convicted. Allegation is that the appellant no.1, who was a supplier of medicines to A.H.D., Bihar, defrauded the Government to the extent of Rs. 15,13,45,510/ - in pursuance of the conspiracy with others from 1.12.1995 to 27.1.1996 on the basis of fake allotment letters purported to have been issued by the Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, for purchase of medicines. It has been the further case of the prosecution that the appellant has acquired moveable and immoveable properties from the ill -gotten money in his name and in the names of his wife, children and others, other appellants, at different places by showing fake supplies to A.H.D. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellants purchased different properties from their unknown source of income and the first appellant alongwith others had participated in illegal act by conspiracy by showing supply of medicines when no such supply was made. As there was reasonable apprehension that the appellants may dispose of the properties purchased from ill -gotten money, CBI filed an application before the court below under section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, to pass an order of ad interim attachment in respect of the properties detailed in Annexure -2 and also to confirm the same after enquiry. Accordingly, notices were issued to the appellants. In pursuance of the notice, the appellants also filed their show casue and evidence was adduced by the parties. Ultimately, after enquiry, Special Judge found that the order of ad interim attachment earlier passed was fit to be made absolute. Accordingly, the order has been confirmed. Against this order, this appeal has been filed.
(3.) THE main ground urged in this appeal is that the evidence adduced by the appellants to prove that the properties have been purchased from their own source of income have not been properly dealt with by the court below.;