under the said Act. The said amendment does not touch any provisions of the Odisha Special Courts Act. Hence, the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India does not make the provisions of confiscation under the Special Courts Act inoperative after such amendment in the P.C. Act. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, notwithstanding mentioning of the word 8confiscation9 which appears to have been used as against the word 8forfeiture9 mentioned in 1944 Ordinance, the same is not occupying the field with regard to adinterim confiscation of the ill-gotten money allegedly acquired by means of the offence committed under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act by the persons, who held high public or political office and triable by the Special Court under the Odisha Special Courts Act. Therefore, the contention that is advanced that the Authorized Officer in the Special Court, after the aforesaid amendment is denuded of the power of confiscation and, as such, a confiscation proceeding therein is not maintainable, is devoid of merit, even though this Court do not agree with the rejection of the prayer made by the Authorized Officer in some cases with regard to the fact that prospective application of the amendment being a ground for rejection of such prayer. Approving such reasoning of Authorized Officer would amount to giving a seal of approval to the contention made that proviso to Article 254(2) has application to such amendment, to which this Court do not agree, as according to my humble opinion, the aforesaid is not an enactment which affects the provisions of ad-interim confiscation, exercised under the Odisha Special Courts Act.
