In this appeal appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.3.89 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shilloog in Misc. Case No. 8 (H) of 1986 vacating the order of attachment dated 29. 10. 86. 2. The appellant is a nationalised Bank. The case of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 along with another employee of the appellant from 1981 onward defrauded Back's' fund to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- from different account of its constituents which was detected in the year 198S and the matter referred to the Police. The Police registered P. S. Case No. 49 (3) 85 U/s 420/468 1PC against the respondent No. 1 and others. The appellant thereafter, approached the Govt. of Meghalaya for authorising it to file an application U/s 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, for putting the property acquired out of the defrauded money in the name of the relatives of the respondent No. 1. namely, respondent No. 2 and 3 and other under attachment. The Govt. having authorised by its order dated. 18. 7. 86, the appellant filed an application in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shillong and the said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 8(H) of 1986, The learned District and Sessions Judge being satisfied, put the two storied building at Kenches Trace Shillong and Truck under attachment vide his order dated. 29. 10. 86 which according to the appellant were acquired in the names of relatives, namely, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the defrauded money by the respondent No. 1. The learned Sessions Judge also issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the order of attachment should not be made absolute Thereafter, the respondents appeared and filed written objections U/s 4(4) of the said Ordinance wherein amongst other an objection was raised about the maintainability of the application U/s 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. 3. The learned District & Sessions Judge after hearing the parties by the order dt. 24. 4. 87 held that the application was maintainable. Thereafter, 18.4.88 was fixed for adducing the evidence by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in support of their contention that the attached properties were their self-acquired properties and not acquired with the money alleged to have been defrauded by the respondent No. 1. On 18. 4. 24. 4. 87 held that the application was maintainable. Thereafter, 18.4.88 was fixed for adducing the evidence by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in support of their contention that the attached properties were their self-acquired properties and not acquired with the money alleged to have been defrauded by the respondent No. 1. On 18. 4. 88 one witness of the respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared and he was examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, the depositions of other witnesses on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded in the absence of the Advocate of the appellant, who could not appear for some reasons, reserving the right of cross-examining those witnesses by the appellant on subsequent date/ dates. On 5. 8. 88, the learned District and Sessions Judge allowed last chance to the appellant to take steps as to who the witnesses of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the appellant wanted to cross-examine and fixed 3. 9. 88 for taking steps. 4. On . 9. 88 the appellant filed two applications numbered as petition No. 510 an4 511 respectively. In the petition No. 510 the appellant prayed for recalling the witnesses already examined by the respondents No. 2 and 3 for cross-examining by the counsel of the appellant. In the petition No, 511, the appellant prayed for an opportunity to examine its own witnesses and to file and prove some documents in the case to substantiate its contention. However, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated, 3. 9. 88 fixed 9. 9. 88 for hearing of these two petitions. On 9. 9. 88, the learned District and Sessions Judge after hearing the counsels for the parties fixed 16. 9. 88 for further hearing. On 16. 9. 88 the hearing was adjourned to 6. 10. 88 and on that date again to 13. 10. 88. On 13. 10. 88, the petitioners were heard in part and the hearing was ultimately concluded on 17. 12. 88. 5. The learned District and Sessions Judge a though heard the objection of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as regards the prayer made in the said two petitions dated 3. 9. 88, however, by the impugned order dated. 15. 3. 89 decided the entire matter on merit and on consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent Nos. The learned District and Sessions Judge a though heard the objection of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as regards the prayer made in the said two petitions dated 3. 9. 88, however, by the impugned order dated. 15. 3. 89 decided the entire matter on merit and on consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 held that the properties attached were self-acquired properties of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not acquired by the Bank's fund alleged to be defrauded by the res­pondent No. 1 along with others and vacated the order of attachment. The appellant being aggrieved, has filed this appeal U/s 11 of the Ordinance. 6. Mr. S. K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned District and Sessions Judge has arbitrarily and illegally passed the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as, (1) the appellant has the right to cross-examine the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3; (2) the learned District and Sessions Judge having kept the proceeding reserved and fixed 3. 9. 88 for giving last chance to the appellant to state the names of the witnesses of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whom the appellant wanted to cross-examine and in compliance thereof the appellant having by petition No. 510 prayed for recalling of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for cross-examination the learned District Judge ought to have allowed the appellant to cross-examine; (3) the appellant has the right to examine its own. witnesses and to lead documentary evidence to- substantiate that the attached properties were acquired in the name of the respondents No. 2 and 3 by the respondents No. 1 with the fund of the Bank defrauded by him, and (4) the learned District Judge heard both the parties only on the prayer made in petitions Nos. 510 and 511 of the appellant but without confining the deci­sion on the prayer in these petitions and without hearing the case on merit arbitrarily and illegally decided the case on merit, 7. Mr.K.B. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that (i) the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 is not a Govt. Mr.K.B. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that (i) the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 is not a Govt. employee, (ii) the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance being a special law, it does not provide for the right to cross-examination of the witnesses or the right to examine the witnesses of the applicant U/s 3 of the Ordinance and the learned District and Sessions Judge has rightly held that the appellant has no right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and 3 whose proper­ties were attached and to examine its own witnesses. The learned counsel further submits that this appellant has no locus standi to file an appeal U/s 11 of the Ordinance. 8. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant as well as on behalf of the respondents. The first point is to be decided is whether the appellant has locus standi to file an appeal U/s 11 of the Ordinance. Mr. K. B. Paul; learned coun­sel for the respondents has submitted that U/s 11 of the Ordinance, only the State Govt. or any person who has shown cause, has a right to appeal and that the appellant not being the State Govt. or Central Govt. has no locus standi to prefer appeal. Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, on the other-hand has submitted that section 11 is to be read with section 3 of the Ordinance. Section 3 provides that whenever the State Govt. has reason to believe that any person committed scheduled offence, the State Govt. may authorise the making of an application to the District Judge within local limits of jurisdiction. In the instant case, the State Govt. admittedly has authorised the appellant to make application U/s 3 of the Ordinance and on the basis of the application the proceeding commenced. The appeal arose out of the judgment and order passed in the proceeding. Appeal being the continuation of original proceeding, the person so autho­rised by the State Govt. to make the application, naturally has the right to file appeal against the order passed in the application. The appeal arose out of the judgment and order passed in the proceeding. Appeal being the continuation of original proceeding, the person so autho­rised by the State Govt. to make the application, naturally has the right to file appeal against the order passed in the application. The word 'State Govt.' appearing in section 11 of the Ordinance should not be taken in super technical sense but is to be given wider meaning to include in its ambit the persons authorised by the State Govt. U/s 3 of the Act. I find much force in the sub­mission made on behalf of the appellant. Reading sections 3 and LI of the Ordinance, it is to be held that 'State Govt.' appear­ing in section 11 necessarily include the person authorised by The State Govt. to make an application U/s 3 of the Ordinance to prefer an appeal U/s II of the Ordinance if aggrieved by an order of the District Judge in the proceedings initiated on the basis of the application filed U/s 3 of the Ordinance. In the instant case, being authorised by the State Govt. to make an application U/s 3 of the Ordinance, the appellant entered into shoes of the State Govt. and naturally has locus standi to file an appeal U/s 11 of the Ordinance. 9. As regards the question as to whether the applicant U/s 3 of the Ordinance has the right to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents examined in support of their claim that the attached properties were not acquired with the money of the appli­cant stated to have been defrauded, Mr. K. B. Paul, learned coun­sel for the respondents has submitted that on reading of sections 5, 6, 7 and other provisions of the Ordinance it is clear that the learned District Judge is to be satisfied with the evidence adduced by the claimant that the acquired properties were self acquired properties and not acquired by the alleged defrauded money and cross-examinations of witnesses by the applicant U/s 3 of the Ordi­nance as well as adducing evidences of rebuttal by the said appli­cant is not contemplated. In support of the contention the learned counsel has placed reliance in the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sonamati Devi vs. State (AIR 1958 Patna 508) and laid emphasis on the following observations of the said Court:- “The entire scheme of the Ordinance shows that evidence has to be adduced by the claimant in support of his case that he has interest in the property attached, and when that evi­dence has been adduced, it is for the Court to consider whe­ther that evidence was sufficient to establish his claim, inde­pendent of the question whether any evidence in rebuttal had been adduced by the State. If that evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the claim laid by the claimant, the claim must fail not withstanding the fact that no evidence to the contrary had been led on behalf of the State." 10. Section 5 of the Ordinance provides that dealing with the objection to the attachment specially to the provisions of the Ordi­nance, the Court should follow the procedure and exercise all the powers of the Court in hearing a suit under the Code of Civil Pro­cedure, 1908, and any person making objection U/s 4 shall require to adduce evidence to show that on the date of attachment he had some interest in the property attached. There is no specific bar to cross-examine witnesses examined on behalf of a person/ persons making objection to the attachment under any provisions of the Ordinance. Besides, when a witness is examined by a party to establish something, the other party contesting the claim of that party naturally has a right to cross examine the witnesses to show that what was stated in examination-in-chief by the said witness or witnesses are not facts. Provisions of the evidence can not and does not contemplate examinations of witnesses of a claimant exparte. From the impugned order it appears that the learned District Judge placing reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Patna High Court in the case of Sooamati Devi, supra held that in view of the said ecision the prayer to cross-examine wit­nesses by the appellant who were examined on behalf of the res­pondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not be considered as same was not provided in the Ordinance. 11. 2 and 3 could not be considered as same was not provided in the Ordinance. 11. I have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sonamati Devi, supra and I find that the observation of the Court has been mis-construed by the learned Distrtct and Sessions Judge. What was observed in that case was that evidence has to be adduced by the claimant in support of the claimant that he had interest in the property attached, and if that evidence adduced by itself is not sufficient to establish the claim, the claim must fail even if no evidence to the cantrary was led on behalf of the State. In other words, because the State failed to adduce evidence of rebuttal, the claimant cannot succeed to establish his claim that he had interest in the property if the Court finds that evidences adduced by the claimant is not sufficient to establish the claim. From the ooservdtions it cannot be held tha^t Patna High Court, had held that the State or an au horised person making an application has no right to cross-examine witnesses of the person/ persons making objections against the attachment and/or adduce evidence of rebuttal. As such, the impugned order holding the appellant has no right to cross examine is arbitraty and erroneous and cannot be subtained. The appellant in the instant case ought to have been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also to adduce evidence of rebuttal. 12. The submission of Mr. K.B.Paul, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the application U/s 3 of the Ordinance was not miiatainable, because the respondent No. 1 was not a Gover­nment employee, has no substance. The questions of maintainability had already been decided by the learned District Judge by order dated. 24.4.S7 against which no appeal/revision was filed. Besides, reading the section 3 of the Ordinance it cannot be said that it is only in case when a Government servant defrauds, application U/s 3 can be made. 13. As stated above, it is apparent from the order sheet that the learned District Judge heard the parties only on the prayer made in the applications Nos. 510 and 511 dated 3.9-88, namely, tore-call witnesses of the respondent Nos. 13. As stated above, it is apparent from the order sheet that the learned District Judge heard the parties only on the prayer made in the applications Nos. 510 and 511 dated 3.9-88, namely, tore-call witnesses of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for cross-examinations and to allow the appellant to adduce the evidence of rebuttal. However, the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment and order decided the entire case on merit. It is not understood as to how the learned District Judge while confined the hearing on the prayers made in the application Nos. 10 and 511 dt. 3.9.88 traveled beyond it and passed the judgment and order on merits disposing of the entire case, although hi did not heard the parties on merits. The learned District Judge should have confined his decision only on the prayer made in the application Nos. 510 and 511 and thereafter fixed a date for hearing the case on merit. 14. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is set aside, the case is remanded to the Court of the learned Distfict and Sessions Judge, Shillong to dis­pose of the case afresh on merit after allowing the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and affording opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence of rebuttal both, oral and documentary, if any. 15. The interim order of attachment of the properties of res­pondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall remain in force till final decision in the matter by the learned District Judge. In case the learned District Judge after hearing finally decides to vacate the order of attachment, learned District Judge shall keep the final decision suspended for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery of judgment and order by him. With the aforesaid observations and direction the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.