Dismissed

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea v. the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ahd

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2023W.P.(Cr.)/333/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition seeking release of attached moveable and immovable properties, the Court found that since appeals regarding related corrupt practice cases were pending before the High Court, the stage for release under Section 13 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 had not been reached. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order for release of the attached moveable and immovable properties.

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr) No. 333 of 2012

¶3

Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj @ Anna Orea ….…… Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through CBI (AHD, Ranchi.

¶5

…… Respondent

¶6

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

---------

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the C.B.I : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.

¶9

20/Dated: 22/08/2023

¶10

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.05.2011 contained in annexure-7 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I in Miscellaneous (Civil) Case No. 41/1997 whereby he has been pleased to reject the application dated 11.06.2009 filed by the petitioner for releasing the moveable and immoveable property standing in her name. Further prayer has been made to release the moveable and immoveable properties of the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of this petitioner is made accused in about 20 cases of animal husbandry when he was posted as Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi. He submits that the petitioner is the wife of said Junul Bhengraj and she is having her own income as she was discharging duty as a teacher in the district of Dhanbad. He submits that the case of RC Case No. 2(A)/99 was registered for disproportionate assets against the husband of the petitioner and in the chargesheet she has been implicated in view of that she has faced trial with regard to RC Case No. 2(A)/99. He submits that in the said trial this petitioner has been acquitted by judgment dated 29.01.2005 and husband of the petitioner has been convicted. He draws the attention of the Court to several paragraphs of the said judgment contained in supplementary affidavit and submits that so far as disproportionate assets is concerned that has not been proved against the petitioner and she has been acquitted. He submits that subsequent to that the petitioner filed a

¶13

¶14

petition before the learned court for release of moveable and immoveable property which has been rejected by the impugned order. He submits that once the petitioner has been acquitted in RC Case No. 2(A)/99, the said application has been wrongly rejected by the learned court without considering the relevant provisions made under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 13 of the said Ordinance and submits that there are procedure prescribed of disposal of attached property upon termination of criminal proceedings. He submits that once the criminal proceeding has been terminated against the petitioner the learned court was required to pass the order for release of attached property however, the learned court has wrongly passed order on the ground that the appeal is pending with regard to other R.C. cases and the attachment order has been confirmed by the High Court. In this background he submits that the said order may kindly be quashed and proper order may be passed for release of moveable and immoveable property of the petitioner.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. submits that the husband of the petitioner is an accused in about 20 fodder scam cases and the petition filed at Annexure-2 in RC Case No. 24 (A)/96/ PAT and in the said application there is no mention of the property with regard to RC Case No. 2(A)/99 in which the petitioner has been acquitted. He submits that when the subject matter of that R.C. is not prayed in Annexure-2 the said petition itself was not maintainable. He further submits that there is procedure prescribed in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 and Section 3 of said Act speaks of application for attachment of property, section 4 speaks of ad interim attachment, and application in this objection to attachment, section 5 speaks of investigation of objections to attachment, section 6 speaks of attachment of property of male fide transferees, section 7 speaks of execution of orders of attachment, section 8 speaks of security in lieu of attachment, section 10 speaks of duration of attachment and section 13 speaks of disposal of attached property upon termination of criminal proceedings . He submits that the procedure has been followed in view of above section and in view of section 5 the objection was called upon however, the petitioner has failed to file any

¶16

¶17

objection and this petition has been filed only after attachment has been made absolute. He submits that the said attachment was made on 25.02.1997 and the said order of attachment was made absolute by order dated 20.01.2000. In this background he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order as the cases in which the husband of the petitioner has been convicted, appeal arising of those cases are pending before this Court. He submits that the learned court has rightly passed order.

¶18

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the husband of the petitioner is accused in about 20 fodder scam cases. In one of the case the name of petitioner has been cropped in the chargesheet i.e RC Case No. 2(A)/99 and admittedly, the petitioner has been acquitted by judgment dated 29.01.2005 which is with regard to disproportionate assets of the petitioner and her husband. Admittedly, the petitioner is wife of Junul Bhengraj who is facing charge and he has been convicted in most of the cases filed by the C.B.I. arising out of fodder scam cases including in R.C. Case No. 2(A)/99.

¶19

Looking into Annexure-2 the petition filed by the petitioner for release of moveable and immoveable property, there is no mention of RC Case No. 2(A)/99 which suggests that application is not there with regard to property arising of RC Case No. 2(A)/99. The R.C. cases which are subject matter of Annexure-2 in the said application the R.C. case has been disclosed in which the husband of the petitioner has been convicted and for that the appeal is pending before the High Court. There are procedure prescribed in Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. The document brought on record suggests that competent authority has directed to make an application for attachment of the property with regard to R.C cases pursuant to that application was filed. By order dated 25.02.1997 attachment order was passed and said was made absolute by order date 20.01.2000. The petitioner has chosen not to file objection in view of section 5 of the said Ordinance and admittedly in view of section 10 duration of attachment will be upto the termination of the criminal proceeding for which there is attachment order and section 13 speaks of procedure

¶20

¶21

for disposal of attached property after termination of criminal proceeding. Admittedly, the application made with regard to release of the property are with regard to other R.C. Cases and not with regard to RC Case No. 2(A)/99 in which the petitioner has been acquitted and in view of this the petitioner has not been able to make out the case differentiating the things of the property which she has acquired pursuant to her own income and those properties are with regard to other R.C. cases in which the husband of the petitioner has been convicted.

¶22

In the above background on reading the provision made in section 10 along with section 13 of the said Ordinance, it appears that the attachment will come to an end when the criminal proceeding is terminated and the procedure is prescribed under section 13 of the said Ordinance. It appears that the petitioner has not been able to make out the case that termination of cases with regard to attachment have been terminated however it is an admitted fact that the appeal is pending before the High Court with regard to R.C. cases which are subject matter of Annexure-2, the application filed by the petitioner for release of the property.

¶23

In view of above facts, the stage of section 13 of Ordinance has not come as the cases have not been terminated as yet particularly, there is no prayer with regard to release of property with regard to RC Case No. 2(A)/99.

¶24

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Satyarthi/

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea v. the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ahd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea v. the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ahd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Nath Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Iltush Ahamad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand