JUDGMENT :- Heard learned advocates for respective parties. 2. By these applications the applicants-original accused nos. 1 and 2 prayed for stay to the operation of order by which the property is ordered to be forfeited to the State at the conclusion of trial. According to applicant Mangalabai, the order of forfeiture of the property passed by trial Court in Special Case No.5/91 be stayed till the decision of this appeal. By the same application, she prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. By order dated 24/3/06 sentence imposed against her is suspended and she was released on bail. However, her request for stay of judgment of forfeiture of the property was not considered. 3. In Criminal Application No. 1207/06 applicant original accused no. 1 also claims relief to stay the effect and operation to the extent of forfeiture and auction of the property ordered by judgment dated 10/3/06 in Special Case No.5/91. 4. Applicant in Criminal Application No.973/06 is the wife of applicant in Criminal Application No. 1207/06. Both of them were prosecuted in Special Case No.5/91. Accused Bhaskar Wagh was serving in minor irrigation department, Zilla Parishad, Dhule as a Junior Assistant cum-Cashier during the period from 1973 to August, 1989. There were allegations against him that he possessed properties including house properties, agricultural lands and shares disproportionate to his known sources in his own name as well as in the name of his wife accused no.2 Mangala and also in the name of his sons. He failed to give satisfactory account for these disproportionate assets hence he was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r.w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). Accused no.2 Mangala was alleged to have abetted and aided accused no.1 to commit aforesaid offences by allowing her husband to purchase the properties in her name, the offence punishable under Section 109 I.P.C. r.w. Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. 5. The properties were attached by order of District Judge dated 21/5/97 in Criminal Misc. Application No.28/96 which order came to be passed in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance for short). Some of the properties were also attached by order dated 25/2/91 passed in Misc. Application No.13/91. After the trial, the learned Special Judge, Dhule held accused no. Application No.28/96 which order came to be passed in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance for short). Some of the properties were also attached by order dated 25/2/91 passed in Misc. Application No.13/91. After the trial, the learned Special Judge, Dhule held accused no. 1 Bhaskar guilty for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r.w. 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine of Rs.3 lakhs. Accused applicant Mangala is held guilty under Section 109 of I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(e) r.w. 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to R.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.2 lakhs. The learned Special Judge also by the same judgment ordered forfeiture and auction sale of the properties which were attached under the Provisions of the Ordinance. Both accused feeling aggrieved with the order of conviction preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.283/06 and 249/06. As stated above, accused no.2 Mangala was released on bail suspending the sentence. However, accused no. 1 did not apply for bail and he is in jail. 6. By the present applications they prayed for stay to the suspension of the judgment directing forfeiture and auction sale of attached properties. Advocates appearing on behalf of both the applicants submitted that the properties in question have been attached under the provisions of Section 4 of the said Ordinance. According to them, the order of forfeiture and auction sale of the said properties came to be passed by the Special Judge exercising powers under Section 13 of the said Ordinance. According to them, these orders are in contravention of provisions of Section 13 of the said Ordinance because the order of disposal of attached property as contemplated under Section 13 can be passed upon termination of criminal proceeding and in view of Section 2 of the said Ordinance the date of termination of criminal proceeding shall be deemed to be the final decision of the High Court in case appeals are preferred in the High Court or on final decision by Supreme Court in case appeals are preferred to the Supreme Court against the judgment of High Court. So according to them, the powers under Section 13 of the said Ordinance can be exercised after termination of proceedings and same cannot be exercised by the trial Court during pendency of these appeals. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. supports the order and according to him, on conclusion of trial, the Court has passed the order of disposal of the properties, so said order cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction. In view of these rival submissions, it has to be seen as to whether order of forfeiture and auction sale of the properties passed at the conclusion of the trial by the trial Court is justified or not. Under the provisions of Section 452 of Cr.P.C. on conclusion of a trial in any criminal court the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for disposal of the property. Even the order passed under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. is appellable and any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Court under Section 453, Cr.P.C. may file appeal against it to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the conviction by the former Court. Under Sub-Section 2 of Section 454, Cr.P.C. appellate Court may direct the stay of the order pending disposal of the appeal. So these general provisions in Cr.P.c. make it clear that at the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court is competent to pass order of disposal of the property and such order can be stayed by the appellate Court under the provisions of Section 454, CLP.C. The prosecution in the present case is a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The order came to be passed by Special Judge who is empowered to try the said offence. It is not disputed that during pendency of the investigation, at the request of the prosecution in 2 Misc. applications mentioned above, the District Judge passed order of attachment of properties. It has been rightly pointed out that under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the Special Judge while trying the offences punishable under this Act shall exercise all the powers and functions exerciseable by a District Judge under the said Ordinance. So the order passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction. 8. So the order passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction. 8. The order of attachment came to be passed by exercising the powers under Section 4 of the said Ordinance. Sections 12 and 13 lay down the procedure to be followed by Special Judge at the conclusion of the trial. Section 12 lays down that before a judgment is pronounced in any criminal trial for a scheduled offence, if it is represented to the Court that the order of attachment of property has been passed under the said Ordinance in connection with such offence, the Court shall, if it is convicting the accused, record a finding as to the amount of money or value of other property procured by the accused by means of the offence. Sub-Section 2 of Section 12 of the said Ordinance, lays down that in any appeal or revisional proceedings against such conviction, the appellate or revisional Court shall unless it sets aside the conviction, either confirm such finding or modify it in such a manner as it thinks proper. So while recording order of conviction the trial Court was expected to record finding as to the amount of money or value of other property procured by the accused by means of an offence and appellate Court while deciding the appeal is required either to confirm such finding or modify it. So while concluding the trial under Section 12 of the said Ordinance, the trial Court is expected to record finding as to what amount or property is procured by the accused by means of offence. Under Section 12 of the said Ordinance, he is not supposed to pass any order of disposal by way of forfeiture or auction sale. 9. Section 13 of the said Ordinance empowers the District Judge (Special Judge in view of the provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 5) after receiving copy of judgment of the trial Court or orders if any by appellate or revisional Court, to pass order in relation to the property attached under the said Ordinance directing forfeiture of the said property to Government of such amount or value as is found in the final judgment or order of the criminal Court in pursuance of Section 12. Under Sub-Section 1 of Section 13 of the said Ordinance, the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be shall without delay inform the District Judge and shall where criminal proceedings have been taken in any Court, furnish the District Judge with a copy of judgment or order of the trial Court and with the copies of judgment or orders if any of the appellate or revisional Court. Very opening words of Section 13 of the said Ordinance indicates that the powers under Section 13 can be exercised upon the termination of any, criminal proceeding for the scheduled offence in respect of which any order of attachment of property has been made under the said Ordinance. When the proceeding can be said to be terminated is to be decided in view of provisions of Section 2 of the Ordinance. Sub-Section 2 of the Ordinance runs as under: "[2]. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the date of the termination of criminal proceeding shall be deemed to be :- [a]. where such proceedings are taken to the Supreme Court in appeal, whether on the certificate of a High Court or otherwise, the date on which the Supreme Court passes its final orders in such appeal; or [b]. where such proceedings are taken to the High Court and orders are passed thereon and - (i). no application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is made to the High Court, the day immediately following the expiry of ninety days from the date on which the High Court passes its final orders; (ii). an application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused by the High Court, the day immediately following the expiry of sixty days from the date of the refusal of the certificate; (iii). a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted by the High Court, but no appeal is lodged in the Supreme Court, the day immediately following the expiry of thirty days from the date of the order granting the certificate." 10. The provisions in Sub-Section 2 are clear that the proceeding can be said to be terminated after the final judgment in the criminal proceedings. The provisions in Sub-Section 2 are clear that the proceeding can be said to be terminated after the final judgment in the criminal proceedings. In case of appeal to the High Court the proceeding can be said to be terminated after the decision of the appeal by High Court and no application for certificate to leave to appeal to Supreme Court is made then after the expiry of period of 90 days from such a judgment and in case of appeal to the Supreme Court then the proceeding can be said to be terminated on the date on which the Supreme Court passes its final order in such appeals. So these provisions are clear that order of disposal of the property can be passed under Section 13 of the said Ordinance after termination of a proceeding. Admittedly order of conviction has been challenged by these applicants by preferring the appeals and said appeals are pending. While passing the judgment of conviction under the provisions of Section 12 the trial Court was supposed to determine and record a finding as to the amount of money or value of other property procured by the accused by means of offence. But order of disposal of the property cannot be passed while passing judgment. The order of disposal of the attached property can be passed upon termination of criminal proceeding after the decision of appeal against order of conviction. In paragraph nos.55, 56 and 57 of the judgment the trial Court recorded reasons that the properties in question came to be attached under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1944 and at the conclusion in paragraph no.57 it is observed that the learned Judge feels it proper to forfeit aforesaid attached properties to the Government being the offence proved against accused persons. It is also observed that all these properties are liable to be attached and forfeited to the Government. In paragraph no.57 also the trial Judge observed that he feels it necessary to make it clear that in case the ornaments are not sold in auction then the property be sent to the mint. The above referred provision of Sections 12 and 13 of the said Ordinance have not been considered while passing the order of forfeiture of the property and directing its auction sale. The above referred provision of Sections 12 and 13 of the said Ordinance have not been considered while passing the order of forfeiture of the property and directing its auction sale. Admittedly there is no final judgment and the appeals are pending in this Court, so the trial Court was not supposed to pass order of forfeiture of the property as order of disposal of the attached properties needs to be passed under the provisions of Section 13 after termination of proceeding i.e. the final judgments either of High Court or Apex Court. So under these circumstances, it is necessary to stay that part of the judgment by which the property attached was ordered to be forfeited. 11. In the result, both the applications are allowed. The judgment of the trial Court to the extent of disposal of the attached properties i.e. forfeiture to the Government as well as directing its auction sale is stayed till the decision of these appeals. However, it is made clear that the order of attachment of the properties passed by the District Judge exercising powers under the said Ordinance shall be continued till the decision of these appeals. Applications allowed.