ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants prays that he does not want to press the hand written relief mentioned in the relief clause of his appeal. 3. Hand written relief reads as follows : “and an opportunity be given to the appellants to file the reply of the rejoinder in the light of the Hon’ble Division Bench order of the Court in another case.” 4. Prayer is allowed. 5. Aforesaid hand written relief is disallowed as not pressed. 6. The appellants have come before this Court against order dated 8.8.2018 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 06/2017 by the Authorized Officer/Special Judge No.1 nominated by the State Government under the M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “The Adhiniyam, 2011”), whereby the learned Authorized Officer has refused to take into consideration the reply filed by the appellants in the proceedings initiated against them under section 13 of The Adhiniyam, 2011 for confiscation of the seized property allegedly procured by means of the offence. 7. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in view of the scheme of The Adhiniyam, 2011, provisions of section 2(1)(c), section 8 and section 17 of The Adhiniyam, 2011, the appeal is not maintainable. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that as the inconsistence provisions of CrPC are applicable in the matter pertaining to The Adhiniyam, 2011 and there is provision to file review under section 397 of CrPC is available; therefore, no appeal can be filed against the order passed by the authorized Officer. It is further contended that at the most powers of this Court provided under section 482 CrPC can be invoked, but the appeal does not lie against the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the order passed by the Authorized Officer is not under “Chapter III” of The Adhiniyam, 2011, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has opposed the prayer of the respondent and has placed reliance on Narendra v. Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, reported in 2016(III) MPWN 25 , wherein against order of refusal to grant time, an appeal was preferred and was disposed of by this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has opposed the prayer of the respondent and has placed reliance on Narendra v. Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, reported in 2016(III) MPWN 25 , wherein against order of refusal to grant time, an appeal was preferred and was disposed of by this Court. It is argued that though, the question of maintainability of the appeal was not raised or decided in this case Narendra (supra), but the relief prayed in that case was considered and was granted, which sufficiently shows that the learned Court has considered the appeal under section 17 of The Adhiniyam, 2011, as maintainable. 11. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the provisions of The Adhiniyam, 2011 and the order passed by the Authorized Officer. 12. Section 17 of The Adhiniyam, 2011 reads thus: “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 being 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.” (under lined by me) 13. Section 2(1)(c) of The Adhiniyam, 2011 is as under : 2. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) & (b); ........ (c) “Code” means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); 14. Section 8 of The Adhiniyam, 2011 is as follows : “8. Procedure and powers of Special Courts : (1) A Special Court shall, in the trial of such cases, follow the procedure prescribed by the Code for the trial of warrant cases before a Magistrate. (c) “Code” means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); 14. Section 8 of The Adhiniyam, 2011 is as follows : “8. Procedure and powers of Special Courts : (1) A Special Court shall, in the trial of such cases, follow the procedure prescribed by the Code for the trial of warrant cases before a Magistrate. (2) Save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code and of the act shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purpose of the said provisions, the persons conducting a prosecution before a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor. (3) A Special Court may pass, upon any person convicted by it, any sentence authorized by law for the punishment of the offence of which such person is convicted.” 15. Section 17(1) of The Adhiniyam, 2011 provides that any person aggrieved by “any order” of the Authorized Officer “under Chapter III” may appeal to the High Court. There is no doubt that “any order” does not mean each and every procedural order passed during the proceedings, but it certainly means such orders, which have nature or tendency to adjudicate any right granted by the statute finally. The word “any order” cannot be given such a broad meaning to include interlocutory orders but at the same time it cannot be given such a narrow interpretation to the extent that it mean to include only the final order passed by the Authorized Officer, as this will lead to frustrate the purpose of using this word by the legislature. If it would have been the intention of the legislature, instead of using “any order” the word “final adjudication” would have been used to extinct possibility of any confusion or misinterpretation. But that has not been done and the legislature has intentionally opted to use the word “any order” instead of “final order” to give it a wide spectrum or broader meaning. 16. There is no dispute that the impugned order is passed in the proceedings initiated against the appellants under section 13 of The Adhiniyam, 2011, which falls under Chapter III of The Adhiniyam, 2011 and section 17 specifically provides appeal against “any order” passed under “Chapter III” of The Adhiniyam, 2011. 16. There is no dispute that the impugned order is passed in the proceedings initiated against the appellants under section 13 of The Adhiniyam, 2011, which falls under Chapter III of The Adhiniyam, 2011 and section 17 specifically provides appeal against “any order” passed under “Chapter III” of The Adhiniyam, 2011. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellants is maintainable. 17. Adhiniyam, 2011 is a special enactment. Section 25 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 2011. It begins with a non-obstante clause - as notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in case of any inconsistency. Section 25 is as under : 25. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in case of any inconsistency. 18. Conjoint reading of both these provisions make it clear that any order passed under chapter III of the Adhiniyam, 2011 is appealable and this provision has overriding effect over the provisions of the CrPC Thus, In view of the specific provisions, I am not convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and therefore, the preliminary objection is ruled out. 19. Provisions of section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 2011 are related to the “Establishment of the Special Courts” and provide procedure and powers of Special Courts. In the case in hand, the order is passed by the Authorized officer under chapter III of the Adhiniyam, 2011 and not by the “Special Court”. Therefore, the provisions of section 8 contained in chapter II of the Adhiniyam, 2011 has no relevancy with present case. 20. The appellants have come before this Court stating that their reply was already on record, rejoinder was also filed by the respondent and was also available on record; therefore, instead of striking off their reply, the learned authorized Officer should have appreciated the same and should have passed the order taking their reply into consideration. 21. Objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in view of the provisions of rule 10(2) and 10(3) of the M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Niyam, 2012, the reply was not filed by the appellants within the stipulated time; therefore, authorized Officer has correctly stuck off the reply filed beyond the prescribed time limit of 45 days. 22. 21. Objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in view of the provisions of rule 10(2) and 10(3) of the M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Niyam, 2012, the reply was not filed by the appellants within the stipulated time; therefore, authorized Officer has correctly stuck off the reply filed beyond the prescribed time limit of 45 days. 22. Rule 10(2) and 10(3) of Niyam, 2012 reads thus: “10. Authorized Officer to follow summary procedure – (1) ........... (2) If the person affected responds to the notice and appears before the authorized officer either in person or through his legal representative, he shall be furnished with the copy of the application filed under section 13 alongwith all the enclosures. The authorized officer shall allow 30 days time to file his statement in defence. If for good and valid reasons, to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, the person affected does not file his statement of defence, he may be allowed a further period of 15 days within which he shall have to file his statement of defence. (3) If the person affected does not file his statement of defence within the prescribed period of 30 days or within extended period of 15 days, it shall be presumed that he has no defence to put forward and then the authorized officer shall be free to adjudicate the proceeding instituted before him.” 23. To resolve this conflict, study of facts is necessary. Relevant facts of the case are that the proceedings were initiated by the respondent before the Authorized Officer under section 13(1) of The Adhiniyam, 2011 on 10.3.2017. Notices were issued to the appellants for 11.5.2017, which were returned unserved. Notices were re-issued for the date of 11.7.2017 and on this date, the appellants appeared and prayed for and were granted time till 9.8.2017. On 9.8.2017, Advocates refrained themselves from the Court work, therefore, the case was fixed for filing of reply by the appellants for 13.9.2017. On 13.9.2017, on the request of the appellant, further time was granted to file reply and the case was posted for 11.10.2017. On 11.10.2017, the reply was filed by the appellant and the case was posted for filing of rejoinder by the respondent, which was filed on 29.11.2017. During this entire proceeding, the respondent never raised objection. Even in rejoinder, no such objection was raised. 24. On 11.10.2017, the reply was filed by the appellant and the case was posted for filing of rejoinder by the respondent, which was filed on 29.11.2017. During this entire proceeding, the respondent never raised objection. Even in rejoinder, no such objection was raised. 24. Thus, three things are clear from the facts; one) the reply was not filed by the appellants within the stipulated time limit of 30+15=45 days; two) considering the prevailing circumstances, the time to file reply was granted by the authorized Officer and; three) the respondent never raised objection till filing of the rejoinder. 25. It would be pertinent to mention that section 15(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2011 and Rule 10(8) of the Niyam, 2012 provide that after considering the explanation, if any, to the show cause notice issued under section 14 and the materials available before it, and after giving the person affected, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Authorized Officer shall pass an order or shall record a finding as to whether all or any other money or properties in question have been acquired illegally. Section 15(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2011 and rule 10(8) of the Niyam, 2012 reads as under : “Section 15(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2011: 15. Confiscation of property in certain cases – (1) The Authorize Officer may, after considering the explanation, if any, to the show cause notice issued under section 14 and the materials available before it, and after giving to the person affected (and in case where the person affected holds any money or property specified in the notice through any other person, to such other person also) a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order, record a finding whether all or any other money or properties in question have been acquired illegally. Rule 10(8) of the Niyam, 2012: 10. Authorized officer to follow summary procedure – (1) to (7) .................... (8) The authorized officer, after consideration of the application, statement of defence, reply of Special Public Prosecutor and report of experts, if any, shall adjudicate the proceeding and pronounce final verdict within a maximum period of 6 months from the date of the service of notice.” 26. The factual status now is that the reply filed by the appellants so also the rejoinder filed by the respondent is available on record. Opportunity was granted by the learned Authorized Officer considering the prevailing circumstances. The factual status now is that the reply filed by the appellants so also the rejoinder filed by the respondent is available on record. Opportunity was granted by the learned Authorized Officer considering the prevailing circumstances. Section 15(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2011 provides that while passing any order, the Authorized Officer shall consider the explanation to the notice issued under section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2011 and the materials available before it. Powers of review of its own order are not vested in the Authorized Officer. The provisions of any statute should be interpreted in the manner; that they can achieve the very purpose of the statute. The object behind fixing the time limit in the Rules, 2012 is to avoid any delay in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 2011 meant to eradicate corruption and to take decisions at the earliest to deter such type of offences, but now the reply of the appellants is available on record and there is no possibility of protracting the matter or causing delay by them in determination of the allegations finally. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it would not be just and proper to take back the opportunity granted to the appellants and deprive them to defend their case by striking off their reply at this stage and pass an order without considering their reply or only considering the application and the rejoinder of the respondent. 27. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper that the reply which is available on record be considered while passing the final order for just, fair and appropriate adjudication of the proceedings initiated against the appellants. 28. Ex-consequenti, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Authorized officer so far as it relates to the striking off the reply of the petitioner, is set aside. The Authorized Officer is directed to consider the reply filed by the appellants and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. However, question as to whether the reply to the show cause notice can be permitted to be filed after the prescribed time limit is left open. 29. Parties shall bear their own cost.