The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal where the appellant challenged the rejection of her petition to drop confiscation proceedings. The court held that no prejudice was caused by the specific numbering of the case.
The memo of appeal was rejected at the stage of admission itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.505 of 2014 (8) dt.05-12-2014
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.505 of 2014
====================================================== 1. Mrs. Shail Devi w/o Shri Suresh Prasad House No. 6, Adarsh Path, North Shashtri Nagar, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, Town and District Patna .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Vigilance .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma (Law Off. Vig) and Mr. Rabindra Kumar, AC to Vigilance Law Officer
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER
8 05-12-2014
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the Vigilance.
This appeal is directed against the order, dated 31.05.2014, passed in Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012 by Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, by which the petition of the appellant for dropping the confiscation proceeding filed under Section 13 of the Special Court Act, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘ the Act’) has been rejected.
However, the grievance of the appellant is that confiscation case has been numbered as Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012, but, the petition under Section13 of the Act has been filed on 21.09.2013. However, from the impugned order, itself, it appeared that matter concerned with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 104 of 2008, which was numbered as Special Case No. 68 of 2008 in which petition was filed on 28.11.2013 under Section 13 of the Act and Special Public Prosecutor in pursuance of order passed in CWJC No. 10455 of 2010 that both the cases, disproportionate case and confiscation case, can not run in same Special Court and the disproportionate case and confiscation case separated and Special Public Prosecutor filed fresh petition under Section 13 of the Act in the Court on 21.09.2013, but, since original petition was registered and numbered as Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012 it was contended that no need to renumber.
However, the grievance of the appellant is only to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.505 of 2014 (8) dt.05-12-2014
2/2
the effect that affidavit filed on 21.09.2013, but, registered and numbered as Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012, itself, indicates that there is no prejudice to the appellant and more over the appellant can raise the issue at the appropriate stage.
The learned counsel for Vigilance, however, contends that Vigilance Case No. 104 of 2008, which was registered as Special Case No. 68 of 2008 and was pending before the Special Court in that connection a Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012 has been filed. However, the grievance of the appellant is that regular petition under Section 13 of the Act has been filed on 21.09.2013, hence, the appellant, however, admits that earlier there was no material in Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012 and the whole grievance is that the material has been brought on record by fresh petition under Section 13 of the Act on 21.09.2013 and the main grievance of the appellant is that on the basis of the affidavit, dated 21.09.2013, under Section of the Act Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012. The learned counsel for Vigilance, however, submits that he has no grievance in renumbering the case. However, the appellant has not been able to show any prejudice caused by numbering the case as Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012 under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence, I do not find any merit in this memo of appeal. This memo of appeal is rejected at the stage of admission itself.
(Gopal Prasad, J)
SA/-
U U T T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant suffered any prejudice due to the case being initially numbered Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2012 despite a fresh petition under Section 13 of the Act being filed on 21.09.2013.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shail Devi
State of Bihar
Gopal Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
