Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1258 (MP)

Balbhadra Parashar v. State of M. P.

2012-12-05

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No. 11293 of 2012, which is an application filed on behalf of appellants for staying the operation of judgment dated 9th November, 2012 passed by Special Judge (PC Act) of Special Court Established under Special Court Act, 2011, Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 2/2012. 2. The appropriate authority submitted an application under section 13(1) of M.P. Special Court Act, 2011 in regard to confiscation of the property, which was acquired by the appellants disproportionate to the known source of income. 3. Appellant No. 1 Balbhadre Parashar is the then In-charge Committee Manager, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti. On search it was found that he had acquired total property of Rs. 1,05,44,604/- and it was disproportionate to the known source of income. In Schedule-A, it is mentioned that certain lands were purchased by appellant No. 1 Balbhadra Parashar, his wife Smt. Kirn Devi, two sons Vishnu Parashar and Brahma Parashar, daughters-in-law Smt. Rani Parashar and Smt. Rinki Parashar. In Scheduled-B, Life Insurance Policies, which were taken by appellant No. 1 and other persons of the family, have also been mentioned and a total annual premium of Rs. 8,15,191/- has been paid by the appellants. Some fixed deposits and silver and gold jewelleries were also mentioned. The trial Court found that the property was disproportionate to the known source of income of appellant No. 1. 4. The State Legislature has enacted an Act named as “Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011” [hereinfter referred to as “the Act of 2011”]. It has been enacted in regard to confiscation of property and disposal of the cases in this regard by the Court. 5. Section 17 of the aforesaid Act of 2011 prescribes provision of appeal, which is as under:- “17. Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Authorized Officer under this Chapter may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date on which the order appealed against was passed.” (2) Upon any appeal preferred under this section, the High Court may, after giving such parties, as it thinks proper , an opportunity of hearing heard, pass such order, as it thinks fit. (3) An appeal preferred under sub-section(1) shall be disposed preferably within a period of six months from the date it is preferred and stay order, if any, passed in an appeal shall not remain in force beyond the prescribed period of disposal of appeal.” 6. Section 17(2) of the Act of 2011 prescribes that the Court may pass order in an appeal. 7. Section 19 of the Act of 2011 is in regard to refund of confiscated money or property if an order of confiscation made under section 15 of the Act of 2011 is modified or annulled by the High Court in appeal or where the person affected is acquitted by Special Court. The provision is an under:- “19. Refund of confiscated money or property- Where an order of confiscation made under section 15 is modified or annulled by the High Court in appeal or where the person affected is acquitted by the Special Court, the money or property or both shall be returned to the person affected and in case it is not possible for any reason the price thereof including the money so confiscated with the interest at the rate of five percent per annum thereon calculated from the date of confiscation.” 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Special Court has passed the order in regard to confiscation of property without cogent reasons and the order will adversely affect the rights of the appellants. 9. In our opinion, there are sufficient reasons in regard to passing of the order by the Special Court, which is based on evidence. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the appellants’ property was disproportionate to the known source of income. Hence, we do not find any merit in the application. i.e. I.A. No. 11293 of 2012 filed by the appellants for staying of the impugned judgment passed by the Special Court looking to the provisions of Act of 2011. Hence, the application (I.A.No.11293 of 2012) is hereby rejected.