ORDER : Since identical question of law and facts arise in these petitions, so same are taken up together for disposal by a common order, moreso the impugned order passed relates to two cases dealt with by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu by a common order. 2. The petitioner-Vigilance organization is aggrieved of an order passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, (hereinafter referred as ' Special Court' ) under Section 8(C) of the amended ' Prevention of Corruption Act' whereunder while dis-agreeing with confirmation order of ' Designated Authority' regarding attachment of three storeyed house constructed over a plot of land measuring 1.6 Kanals at Friends Enclave Humhama, District Budgam, Kashmir quashed the same by relasing the attached property. 3. The matter arises with the following circumstantial backdrop : The petitioner submits that during investigation arising out of FIR No. 15/2010 with Police Station, Vigilance Organisation, Jammu, it was found that the respondent (Mohd. Bashir) in his capacity as public servant had resorted to Benami transaction to conceal ill gotten money amassed through corrupt practices and among other properties, acquired three storeyed house at Friends Enclave, Humhama, constructed over a Plot No. 23 of J & K Co-operative Housing Corporation, Jammu in the name of his close friend/associate/confidante Shri Kamal Singh (Benamidar) respondent in 561-A Petition No. 12/2011 in the year 2004 and subsequently constructed three storeyed house over this plot in the year 2008-09. The investigation has found that Shri Mohd. Bashir (accused) acquired above mentioned property in the name of Shri Kamal Singh (respondent) who happens to be his close friend/associate/confidante. It was found that Shri Kamal Singh (respondent) had only lent his name for the consideration paid by Mohd. Bashir. Shri Kamal Singh (Benamidar) respondent was accordingly made an accused in the case and the provision of J. & K. Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2010 were also invoked. The Investigating Officer in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 8-B of the J. & K. P. C. Act, 2006 attached property viz. three storeyed house at Friends enclave, Humahama, Srinagar construed over a Plot No. 23, of J. & K. Co-operative Housing Corporation, Jammu on 28-8-2010. The Investigating Officer, thereafter in terms of sub-section (2) of section 8-B of J. & K. P. C. Act, 2006 informed Secretary to Government, General Administration Department (Designated Authority) within the stipulated period of the circumstances occasioning the attachment of the property. The Investigating Officer, thereafter in terms of sub-section (2) of section 8-B of J. & K. P. C. Act, 2006 informed Secretary to Government, General Administration Department (Designated Authority) within the stipulated period of the circumstances occasioning the attachment of the property. The Designated Authority after hearing the parties as also after considering the material placed before it by the parties confirmed the order of attachment dated 28-8-2010 issued by the Investigating Officer. The accused Shri Mohd. Bashir and Shri Kamal Singh (Benamidar) respondent(s) filed appeals against the order dated 5-10-2010 passed by the Designated Authority before the Appellate Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of J. & K. P. C. Act, 2006. The Appellate Court in terms of composite order dated 6-1-2011 allowed the appeals filed by both accused Mohd. Bashir and accused Benamidar Kamal Singh/respondent and set aside the order impugend dated 5-10-2010 issued by the Designated Authority and released the attachment property. The Appellate Court set aside/revoked the impugned order dated 6-1-2011 passed by Designated Authority inter alia on the following grounds : a) ' The designated authority has not conducted full and fair enquiry as provided under the Act, while passing the impugned order and has passed the impugned order in haste without affording any opportunity to the appellants to produce the evidence to rebut/controvert the evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer. The Designated Authority has not followed the principle of natural justice and as such the impugned order is illegal. b) The Designated Authority has no power under law to extend the time fixed by the statute beyond 21 days. The impugned order contains an unwarranted justification for extending the stipulated period of 21 days. c) The proceedings recorded by Designated Authority does not make mention of the fact that the requisite material/statements have been supplied to the appellants and how did the appellants respond to it.' 4. The impugned order contains an unwarranted justification for extending the stipulated period of 21 days. c) The proceedings recorded by Designated Authority does not make mention of the fact that the requisite material/statements have been supplied to the appellants and how did the appellants respond to it.' 4. The petitioner-Vigilance Organization, Jammu (VOJ), is aggrieved of the order dated 6-1-2011 passed by the Appellate Court (Special Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu) under sub-section (3) of Section 8-B of the J. & K. P. C. Act and prayed for setting aside the same on the grounds detailed out herein : (i) The impugned order is mis-directed on facts and law as the impugned order suffers from serious illegality as the same is not passed in consonance with the provision of law. (ii) The impugned order has been passed by the Appellate Court on irrelevant considerations which are not within the scope and ambit of amended section 8-B of the P. C. Act, 2006. The Court below has failed to appreciate that the attached property has been acquired by the accused/respondent by resorting to acts of omission and commission which constitute an offence of Criminal misconduct as defined under Section 5 of the J. & K. P. C. Act as such, the order is liable to be set aside; (iii) that the Appellate Authority seem to have proceeded on the legal premise that it was enjoined upon the designated authority to strictly follow the rules of procedure as followed by Civil Courts. It is submitted that the designated authority is only enjoined upon to provide an opportunity of hearing to the effected party and not to hold a full fledged trial. The designated authority is only required to make a full and fair enquiry into the matter before it. In the present case the designated authority had granted full opportunity, heard the counsel of the respondent and had also considered all the material placed before the designated authority by the Investigating Officer. It is accordingly submitted that the conclusion of the Appellate Court with due respects is erroneous and misconceived and is liable to be set aside; (iv) that the Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the material placed on record by the Investigating Officer which prima facie disclosed that the accused/respondent was the actual owner of the attached property wherein the movable property of the respondent was found. The material placed before the designated authority clearly led to inescapable conclusion that the respondent was the actual owner of the attached property which had been acquired by him as a public servant by resorting to illegal/unfair means. The Appellate Court has not dealt with this aspect and has not given any finding, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside; (v) that as regards ground-1 relied by the Appellate Court, it may be submitted that the designated authority was required under sub-section (3) of section 8-B either to confirm or revoke the order of attachment, so issued within twenty-one days, provided that an opportunity of being heard was afforded to the Investigating Officer and the person whose property was attached. As per sub-section (7) of section 8-B, the designated authority has the power of civil Court required for making full and fair enquiry into the matter before it. The requirement of law as followed by designated authority by providing full opportunity both to the Investigating Officer and the appellants. The designated authority after perusal of record/evidence and after hearing the parties passed the impugned order. It may be stated that advocates representing the appellants before the designated authority were heard in depth as would be manifestly clear from the impugned order. The arguments advanced were considered and did not find any merit resulting in issue of the impugned order by designated authority. The respondent (Benamidar) Shri Kamal Singh could not even explain as to how the items belong to accused Mohd. Bashir came into the attached house. The designated authority issued notices to the parties, heard them at length, perused and considered the material placed before it both by Investigating Officer and the appellants as also provided opportunity of hearing to the parties for the purpose of making full and fair enquiry into the matter and thereafter passed the impugned order. The designated authority further did not find it expedient to summon any witness either for examination or cross-examination as pleaded and contended by the appellants. The designated authority has thus not acted in haste but has followed the procedure as envisaged under law which included the providing of opportunity of hearing to the parties. The principle of natural justice had been strictly followed by the designated authority and no miscarriage of justice as alleged had been caused to the appellants on this score. The designated authority has thus not acted in haste but has followed the procedure as envisaged under law which included the providing of opportunity of hearing to the parties. The principle of natural justice had been strictly followed by the designated authority and no miscarriage of justice as alleged had been caused to the appellants on this score. The ground is not thus legally sustainable. (vi) that as regards ground-2 relied by the Appellate Court, it may be submitted that the designated authority has the power to enlarge/extent the time so fixed by the statute. The designated authority had extended the time period beyond twenty-one days in view of the circumstances prevailing in the valley. The designated authority has thus justified the extension of time as would be clear from the impugned order. The designated authority was under legal obligation to extend the time beyond twenty-one days and the same was aimed at to provide opportunity of being heard to the parties required for the purpose of making full and fair enquiry in the matter. The extension of time beyond twenty-one days has enabled the parties to explain their position and conduct in the matter, which in turn aided the designated authority to arrive at a just conclusion. The conclusion arrived at by the designated authority on the basis of the material and after hearing the parties does not thus suffer from any legal infirmity. This ground so taken by the appellate Court for revoking the order of designated authority is not legally sustainable; (vii) that as regards the ground-3 relied by the Appellate Court, it may be submitted that the Investigating Officer had supplied the material/statement to the counsel for the accused Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed Sofi against proper receipt. The appellate court has not appreciated that on 13-9-2010 counsel for the accused appellant submitted an application for supply of material/statement connecting his client with the property attached and the designated authority in the interest of justice directed Investigating Officer to provide requisite material/statement to Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed Sofi, Advocate and the material was supplied on the very date to the advocate and the matter came up for further consideration on 5-10-2010 S/Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed Sofi and Bashir Ahmed Dar, Advocates representing accused Mohd. Bashir and Kamal Singh respectively after having received the material from the Investigating Officer made submissions and argued the matter before designated authority on 5-10-2010 as is clear from the impugned order. This ground so relied by the appellate Court is not also legally sustainable and as such the impugned order is liable to set aside; the appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer which has proved that accused public servant Mohd. Bashir had resorted to Benami transaction to conceal his ill gotten money and among other properties acquired attached property in the name of his friend/associate/confidante Shri Kamal Singh (Benamidar) respondent and the Benami property so acquired by accused Mohd. Bashir was liable to be attached under the amended provisions of the Act. 5. On notice, respondents appeared and raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of petition in the context of the scheme provided under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. Mr. Sunil Sethi learned appearing counsel for the respondents submits that after insertion of sections 8-B, 8-C, 8-D, 8-E and 8-F in Act XIII of Samvat 2006 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the Act of ' 2006' ) any property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted and it is established that such property has been acquired by resorting to such acts of omission and commission which constitute an offence of ' criminal misconduct- as defined under section 5 of the Act of 2006, the investigation officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) has the power with the prior approval in writing of the Commissioner of the Organization, make an order seizing such property and, where it is not practicable to seize such property, make an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order or of the Designated Authority before whom the properties seized or attached are produced. 7. 7. Learned appearing counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of Section 8-B of sub-section (2) of the Act of 2006, the Investigating Officer has to inform the Designated Authority, within forty-eight hours, of the seizure or attachment of such property together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the seizure or attachment of such property as the case may be and in terms of section 8-B sub-section (3) of the Act of 2006, the Designated Authority can either confirm or revoke the order of seizure or attachment so issued within seven days. 8. Section 8-C of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2006 provides for Appeal against the order of Designated Authority before ' Special Court' and the ' Special Court' may either confirm the order of attachment of property or seizure so made or revoke such order and release the property or pass orders as it may deem just and proper within a period of sixty days. 9. Section 8-C, sub-section (2) provides that any property seized or attached under Section 8-B, the Special Court if satisfied about such seizure or attachment, may order forfeiture of such property, whether or not the person from whose possession it is seized or attached is prosecuted in the ' Special Court' for an offence under this Act. 10. Section 8-E of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2006, provides for Appeal, against the order of forfeiture under section 8-C within one month from the date of receipt of such order, before the High Court. 11. Mr. U. K. Jalali senior appearing counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision of Appeal against the order passed by the ' Special Court' revoking the order of Designated Authority, but there is only Appeal provided against the order of forfeiture, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for respondents is that the State cannot file the instant petition before this Court and seek relief under inherent powers of the Court. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. Regarding the maintainability of the petition, Mrs. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. Regarding the maintainability of the petition, Mrs. Z. S. Watali, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner-VOJ has referred to and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon- ble Supreme Court titled Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 : (AIR 1998 SC 128) and submitted that this Court can exercise its power of judicial review under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel submits that since the order passed by ' Special Court' amounts to abuse of the process of law, therefore, Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent such abuse of the process of law and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. Learned counsel further submits that this Court in exercise of powers under S. 561-A of the Code has no limits but more power to ensure that administration of justice remains clean. Mrs. Watali submits that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the petition is not maintainable under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. but the court has power to change the nomenclature by treating it as a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 103, 104 of the State Constitution. 14. Amended provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act inserted vide Act XIII of Samvat, 2006 are dealing with seizure, attachment of property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted and it is established that such property has been acquired by resorting such acts omission and commission which constitute ' criminal misconduct- as defined under section 5 of the Act of 2006 can be seized or attached by an officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) of the Vigilance Organization, investigating an offence committed under this Act. The scheme of the Act provides for an Appeal against the order of Designated Authority and further Appeal against order of Special Court if any property seized or attached, the Court may order forfeiture of such property, but there is no Appeal provided of order of ' Special Court' revoking the order of ' Designated Authority' . 15. The scheme of the Act provides for an Appeal against the order of Designated Authority and further Appeal against order of Special Court if any property seized or attached, the Court may order forfeiture of such property, but there is no Appeal provided of order of ' Special Court' revoking the order of ' Designated Authority' . 15. Admittedly there is no provision of Appeal against an order passed by ' Special Court' under S. 8-C but then the question arises what can be the remedy available to an aggrieved person who intends to challenge the legality of the order if the same is based on incorrect facts and against records and the order amounts to abuse of the process of court or has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 16. This Court had an occasion to deal with an order of ' Special Judge' passed in exercise of powers conferred under S. 8-C of Prevention of Corruption Act and this Court has already entertained a writ petition and after formation of questions referred the same to a Larger Bench, therefore, there shall be no hesitation in entertaining this petition and to see as to whether the ' Special Court' has passed the order which amounts, to abuse of process of the court, or the order passed has resulted in miscarriage of justice, therefore, to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in various judgments of the Hon- ble Supreme Court, this petition is declared as maintainable. 17. The discretion vested in a High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised suo motu to prevent the abuse of the process of a court, and/or to secure the ends of justice. 18. Width of powers of the High Court under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited, whereunder in the interest of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within parameters laid down in Bajan Lal- s case, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . 19. 19. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs it will be appropriate to determine the veracity of the prayer for setting aside the order raised by the petitioner-VOJ by invoking power vested in this Court under S. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. 20. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the ' Special Court' has not appreciated the material forming basis for attachment of property and based the order on erroneous and unfounded grounds and the order amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and has the result of miscarriage of justice. 21. Let me test the legality of order impugned passed by ' Special Court' with reference to the records made available. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that order of ' Designated Authority' has been passed without any enquiry, simply on the basis of material submitted by Investigating Officer, without affording any opportunity of leading evidence to the appellants so the order of attachment of property suffers from a serious infirmity and as such was rightly set aside by ' Special Court' . It was also argued that the Designated Authority was discharging quasi-judicial function and so he was bound to act judicially with due regard to the settled principles of law, but he manifestly appears to have shown obliviousness to rules of natural justice and has passed the order impugned in a very casual manner, being unmindful of its consequences. Learned appearing counsel for respondent(s) laid stress on the fact that the only stage when respondents could lead evidence to refute the evidence collected by I.O. was before Designated Authority, but no such chance was given to the respondents, which has resulted in a serious prejudice to them and they have virtually been condemned unheard, which necessitates the revocation of attachment order. Mrs. Watali Ld. Dy. A. G. representing petitioner-VOJ has submitted that the ' Designated Authority' has done all what was required under law and the enquiry which he was under legal obligation to conduct cannot be stretched to the extend of cross-examination or examination of witnesses by respondents as that would defeat the very purpose of law. That apart, record of the proceedings conducted by Designated Authority reveals that the proceedings were commenced by him on 1-9-2010, when summons were directed to be issued against respondent (Mohd. That apart, record of the proceedings conducted by Designated Authority reveals that the proceedings were commenced by him on 1-9-2010, when summons were directed to be issued against respondent (Mohd. Bashir) and I. O. was also asked to produce the case diaries, and the respondents were given full opportunity of being heard has been given to the respondents at all by the Designated Authority and the order passed by the Designated Authority is consistently with law after adhering to the principles of natural justice. 22. The contention raised by learned counsel for parties regarding adherence to the rule of natural justice has reference to the impugned order passed by ' Special Court' and on examination of the order impugned, it revealed that the rule of natural justice has not been followed by the petitioners in its letter and spirit. 23. ' Rule of Natural Justice' is an ideal element of law in the sense that it is known as natural law, divine justice or universal justice. These principles apply equally to judicial and quasi-judicial functions. Even in a purely administrative function where the civil consequences follow, the rule of natural justice has to be followed. From the minutes of the proceedings conducted by ' Designated Authority' , it is nowhere manifest that he has shown any concern for the rule of natural justice. He was supposed to hear the affected person(s) and hearing means, due notice, coupled with an opportunity of rebutting the evidence of other party. The sine qua non of a fair hearing ordinarily signifies an adequate chance to the affected party to meet the case adversely, which would include an opportunity of leading evidence. The respondents claimed to be effected by the arbitrary and one sided act of I. O. Respondent (Mohd. Bashir) contended that the property attached was being added to his assets, notwithstanding the fact that it belonged to respondent (Kamal Singh) and Kamal Singh pleaded that the attached property belonged to him but was attached without reason, though no case was pending investigation/trial against him. So both being affected had a right of fair hearing. From day one, they were crying that they be provided with the material/evidence so that they could respond effectively by leading evidence, but no such chance was ever provided to them by the Designated Authority. So both being affected had a right of fair hearing. From day one, they were crying that they be provided with the material/evidence so that they could respond effectively by leading evidence, but no such chance was ever provided to them by the Designated Authority. Moreso, respondents in writing submitted objections which too have not been discussed/considered by the Designated Authority. Their request for a chance to adduce evidence was even not considered. The Designated Authority appears to have acted in haste and considered only what was placed before him by the I.O., without caring about the rights of respondent(s). 24. The minutes of the proceedings recorded by the learned Designated Authority do reveal that it had acted in haste and has passed the impugned order simply on the appreciation of the material submitted by the I.O., which indicates that he was probably pre-disposed to decide the matter in a particular manner. The significance of rule of natural justice has been the subject of debate before courts on so many occasions and the courts have always underlined the importance of the rule before a judicial or quasi judicial authority and even in administrative actions. It has time and again been reiterated that the rule is co terminus with right to hearing and hearing means opportunity of leading evidence as well. In AIR 1988 SC 686 , the Hon- ble Apex Court observed as under : ' On the basis of authorities it must be held that even when a State agency acts administratively, rules of natural justice would apply. As stated, natural justice generally requires that persons liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so that they may be in a position (a) to make representations on their own behalf; (b) or to appear at a hearing or enquiry (if one is held); and (c) effectively to prepare their own case and to answer the case (if any) they have to meet. Again in (2000) 5 SCC 65 (Para No. 17) : ( AIR 2000 SC 2198 Para 16), the Apex Court was pleased to emphasize the essentials of rule of natural justice and the necessity of its observance in the following words :- It is no point laying stress on the principles of natural justice without understanding their scope or real meaning. There are two essential elements of natural justice which are : (a) no man shall be judge in his own cause; and (b) no man shall be condemned, either civilly or criminally, without being afforded an opportunity of being heard in answer to the charge made against him. In course of time by various judicial pronouncements these two principles of natural justice have been expanded, e.g. a party must have due notice when the tribunal will proceed; the tribunal should not act on irrelevant evidence or shut out relevant evidence; if the tribunal consists of several members they all must sit together at all times; the tribunal should act independently and should not be biased against any party; its action should be based on good faith and order (sic) and should act in a just, fair and reasonable manner. These in fact are the extensions or refinements of the main principles of natural justice stated above.' 25. The above fact situation and the legal position, leads to only one conclusion that order impugned is the out come of an unfair procedure, a live example of arbitrary and discriminatory state action, taken in utter violation of rule of equality, therefore, not sustainable. 26. Order impugned is challenged in this petition by Vigilance Organization on the ground that learned ' Special Judge' misdirected himself both on facts and law and erring in appreciation of the provisions of amended Act, came to wrong conclusions which renders his judgment bad. In reply respondent(s) have defended the impugned appellate judgment and maintained that it is well founded in fact and law and projects the correct legal position obtaining in the matter. During course of submissions while petitioner- s counsel besides reiterating the contents of petition contended that the amendment in Anti Corruption Law was brought by Govt. in pursuance to observations of Hon- ble Apex Court, so it should ordinarily not be defeated on mere technical considerations. Learned counsel for respondents while quoting from their pleadings have also contended that Designated Authority wrongly confirmed the attachment order, rightly set aside by the Appellate Court under impugned order which in the circumstances is unassailable particularly because I. O.- s attachment order was illegal. 27. Learned counsel for respondents while quoting from their pleadings have also contended that Designated Authority wrongly confirmed the attachment order, rightly set aside by the Appellate Court under impugned order which in the circumstances is unassailable particularly because I. O.- s attachment order was illegal. 27. Perusal of appellate Court order in which the proceedings culminated, reveals that while dis-agreeing with the ' Designated Authority' , confirmatory order regarding attachment order in question, the learned Judge essentially relied on two conclusions; first, that respondent had not been given effective hearing by the ' Designated Authority' before confirmation of attachment, and secondly, that ' attachment' under the Act would not mean physical deprivation of holder/owner of the property in question, but would only restrict the power of its sale or transfer. 28. The findings of Learned ' Special Judge' are well founded on proper screening of the records and are up held. Learned ' Special Judge' has while drawing conclusion supported the same with the records of proceedings maintained by the ' Designated Authority' based on the material produced by the I. O., therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have been given effective hearing and opportunity of being heard is without any basis, as such is not sustainable. Hence rejected. 29. In view of the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the ' Special Court' has been passed consistently with the basic cannons of law, on appreciation of facts and with the application of mind, resultantly these petitions being meritless are dismissed along with all Cr. MAs and the ' Special Court' order is upheld. Copy of judgment be also placed on Petition 561-A No. 11/2011. Petitions dismissed