NIRAKAR ROUT v. STATE OF ORISSA G.A.DEPT.
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2025-07-09. NIRAKAR ROUT v. STATE OF ORISSA G.A.DEPT. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGHIN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACKOF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 490 of 2025 Nirakara Rout …. Appellant Ms. Bini Mishras. Bini Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha (Vig. ) …. RespondentRespondent Mr. Srimantarimanta Das Sr. Standing CounselStanding Counsel CRLA No. 134 of 2018 Nirakara Rout …. Appellant Ms. Bini Mishras. Bini Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha (Vig. ) …. RespondentRespondent Mr. Srimanta DasMr. Srimanta Das Sr. Standing CounselSr. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASHBLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASHBLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 09. 07. 2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. By means of thismeans of this Appeal, the Appellant has assailed thehas assailed the orders dated 20. 03. 2025 and 23. 09. 2024, passed by the learnedorders dated 20. 03. 2025 and 23. 09. 2024, passed by the learnedorders dated 20. 03. 2025 and 23. 09.
2024, passed by the learned Authorised Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar, and has sought toOfficer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar, and has sought toOfficer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar, and has sought to have the prayer rejected therein allowed in the present appealhave the prayer rejected therein allowed in the present appealhave the prayer rejected therein allowed in the present appeal. CRLA No. 490 of 20of 2025 & 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the AppellantThe factual matrix of the case is that the AppellantThe factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant is a retired Senior Geologist who was serving in the Ground Waterretired Senior Geologist who was serving in the Ground Waterretired Senior Geologist who was serving in the Ground Water Remote Sensing DiRemote Sensing Division at Bhubaneswar. He was implicated invision at Bhubaneswar. He was implicated in Cuttack Vigilance P. S. Case No. 19 of 1996 for possession ofCuttack Vigilance P. S. Case No.
19 of 1996 for possession ofCuttack Vigilance P. S. Case No. 19 of 1996 for possession of disproportionate assets, leading to the initiation of proceedingsdisproportionate assets, leading to the initiation of proceedingsdisproportionate assets, leading to the initiation of proceedings underunderunder Sections Sections Sections 13(1)(e) 13(1)(e) 13(1)(e) read read read with with with 13(2) 13(2) 13(2) of of of the the the Prevention Prevention Prevention of of of Corruption Act, 1988. UpoCorruption Act, 1988. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filedn investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter was tried as T. R. Case No. 21/43 of 2012/2002and the matter was tried as T. R. Case No. 21/43 of 2012/2002and the matter was tried as T. R. Case No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 before the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar. before the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar. before the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar.
The charge alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by thealleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by thealleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by the Appellant beyond his known sourcesbeyond his known sources of income. During the pendency of theof income. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the State filed an application under Sectioncriminal proceedings, the State filed an application under Sectioncriminal proceedings, the State filed an application under Section 13 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006, seeking the confiscation13 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006, seeking the confiscation13 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006, seeking the confiscation of certain properties allegedly acquired through corrupt means. Theof certain properties allegedly acquired through corrupt means. Theof certain properties allegedly acquired through corrupt means. The Authorised Officer issued notice to theicer issued notice to the Appellant on 12. 03.
2013,on 12. 03. 2013, initiatinginitiatinginitiating confiscation confiscation confiscation proceedings. On proceedings. On proceedings. On 05. 02. 2018, the Special 05. 02. 2018, the Special 05. 02. 2018, the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar convicted theJudge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar convicted the AppellantAppellant in TR Case No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) ofCase No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) ofCase No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and sentenced him accordingly. The1988, and sentenced him accordingly. The1988, and sentenced him accordingly. The Appellant preferred an appeal, CRLA No. 134 of 2018, before this Court. preferred an appeal, CRLA No. 134 of 2018, before this Court. preferred an appeal, CRLA No. 134 of 2018, before this Court.
WhileWhileWhile the the the said said said appeal appeal appeal was was was pending, pending, pending, the the the Appellant approachedapproachedapproached the the the Authorised Authorised Authorised Officer, Officer, Officer, Special Special Special Court, Court, Court, seeking seeking seeking to to to adduce additional evidence underadduce additional evidence under Section 243 Cr. P. C. to justify theSection 243 Cr. P. C. to justify the sources of income and acquisition of the properties. The Authorisedsources of income and acquisition of the properties. The Authorisedsources of income and acquisition of the properties. The Authorised Officer, vide order dated 23. 09. 2024, rejected the application on theOfficer, vide order dated 23. 09. 2024, rejected the application on theOfficer, vide order dated 23. 09.
2024, rejected the application on the groundgroundground that that that it it it lacked lacked lacked specificity and specificity and specificity and was was was filed filed filed only to only to only to delay delay delay proceedings. Theproceedings. The Appellant filed another application under Sectionfiled another application under Section CRLA No. 490 of 20of 2025 & 243 Cr. P. C. on 03. 10. 2024, detailing the witness list and reasons for243 Cr. P. C. on 03. 10. 2024, detailing the witness list and reasons for243 Cr. P. C. on 03. 10. 2024, detailing the witness list and reasons for examination. This too was rejected by the Authorised Officer byexamination. This too was rejected by the Authorised Officer byexamination. This too was rejected by the Authorised Officer by order dated 20. 03. 2025, citing that permitting such evidence postorder dated 20. 03. 2025, citing that permitting such evidence postorder dated 20. 03.
2025, citing that permitting such evidence post-conviction would be a futile exercise. Aggrieved by the orderswould be a futile exercise. Aggrieved by the orderswould be a futile exercise. Aggrieved by the orders dateddated 23. 09. 2024 23. 09. 2024 and and 20. 03. 2025, 20. 03. 2025, the the Appellant hashas filed filed the the present appeal, CRLA No. 490 of 2025, challenging the refusal topresent appeal, CRLA No. 490 of 2025, challenging the refusal topresent appeal, CRLA No. 490 of 2025, challenging the refusal to summon witnesses and to adduce evidence for the defence at thesummon witnesses and to adduce evidence for the defence at thesummon witnesses and to adduce evidence for the defence at the confiscation proceedings. roceedings. 3. Ms. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant, contendedMs. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant, contendedMs. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant, contended that the impugned orders dated 23. 09. 2024 and 20. 03.
2025 passedthat the impugned orders dated 23. 09. 2024 and 20. 03. 2025 passedthat the impugned orders dated 23. 09. 2024 and 20. 03. 2025 passed by the Authorised Officer rejecting the Appellant’s applicationsby the Authorised Officer rejecting the Appellant’s applicationsby the Authorised Officer rejecting the Appellant’s applications under Section 243 Cr. P. C. are arbitrary and contrary tounder Section 243 Cr. P. C. are arbitrary and contrary to the statutory rights available to the Appellant. She argued that, under Rules 11rights available to the Appellant. She argued that, under Rules 11rights available to the Appellant. She argued that, under Rules 11 and 14 of the Orissa Special Courts Rules, 2007, the provisions ofand 14 of the Orissa Special Courts Rules, 2007, the provisions ofand 14 of the Orissa Special Courts Rules, 2007, the provisions of thethethe Cr. P. C. Cr. P. C. Cr. P. C.
and and and the the the Indian Indian Indian Evidence Evidence Evidence Act Act Act are are are applicable applicable applicable to to to confiscationconfiscation proceedings, proceedings, unless unless inconsistent inconsistent wit withh the the parent parent statute, and therefore, the Appellant’s request to summon witnessesstatute, and therefore, the Appellant’s request to summon witnessesstatute, and therefore, the Appellant’s request to summon witnesses under Section 243 Cr. P. C. was maintainable. The learned Counselunder Section 243 Cr. P. C. was maintainable. The learned Counselunder Section 243 Cr. P. C. was maintainable.
The learned Counsel further submitted that the confiscation proceedings are separate andfurther submitted that the confiscation proceedings are separate andfurther submitted that the confiscation proceedings are separate and independent of the criminal trial, thoughindependent of the criminal trial, though they arise out of the samethey arise out of the same set of facts, and that the standard of proof and scope of evidenceset of facts, and that the standard of proof and scope of evidenceset of facts, and that the standard of proof and scope of evidence differ. On this basis, it was asserted that the Appellant was welldiffer. On this basis, it was asserted that the Appellant was welldiffer.
On this basis, it was asserted that the Appellant was well within his rights to present fresh evidence and call additionalwithin his rights to present fresh evidence and call additionalwithin his rights to present fresh evidence and call additional witnesses including some prosecwitnesses including some prosecution witnesses to rebut findingsution witnesses to rebut findings andandand clarify clarify clarify errors errors errors in in in asset asset asset computation computation computation that that that were were were allegedly allegedly allegedly overlooked during trial. Mr. Mishra also claimed prejudice onoverlooked during trial. Mr. Mishra also claimed prejudice onoverlooked during trial. Mr. Mishra also claimed prejudice on account of not being allowed to present legitimate sources ofaccount of not being allowed to present legitimate sources ofaccount of not being allowed to present legitimate sources of CRLA No.
490 of 20of 2025 & income, such as rental proceeds, scholincome, such as rental proceeds, scholarships, and gifted property,arships, and gifted property, which were not considered by the State authorities. Lastly, thewhich were not considered by the State authorities. Lastly, thewhich were not considered by the State authorities.
Lastly, the learnedlearnedlearned counsel counsel counsel challenges challenges challenges the the the confiscation confiscation confiscation itself itself itself in in in lieu lieu lieu of of of pendencypendencypendency of of of Appeal Appeal Appeal and and and further further further submitted submitted submitted that that that the the the delay delay delay in in in confiscation proceedings was attributableconfiscation proceedings was attributable to the State, not theto the State, not the Appellant, and that unless the impugned orders were set aside, theAppellant, and that unless the impugned orders were set aside, theAppellant, and that unless the impugned orders were set aside, the AppellantAppellantAppellant would would would suffer suffer suffer serious serious serious prejudice, prejudice, prejudice, especially especially especially when when when the the the conviction itself is under challenge in CRLA No. 134 of 2018. conviction itself is under challenge in CRLA No.
134 of 2018. conviction itself is under challenge in CRLA No. 134 of 2018. 4. Mr. Mr. Mr. S. S. S. Das, Das, Das, learned learned learned counsel counsel counsel for for for the the the State State State (Vigilance) (Vigilance) (Vigilance) opposed the appeal by contending that the confiscation proceedingsopposed the appeal by contending that the confiscation proceedingsopposed the appeal by contending that the confiscation proceedings under the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 are a direct and statutoryunder the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 are a direct and statutoryunder the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 are a direct and statutory consequence of the Appellant’s conviction for offences under theconsequence of the Appellant’s conviction for offences under theconsequence of the Appellant’s conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He submitted that once therevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He submitted that once therevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
He submitted that once the Appellant was convicted by the Special Court on 05. 02. 2018, theAppellant was convicted by the Special Court on 05. 02. 2018, theAppellant was convicted by the Special Court on 05. 02. 2018, the confiscation of properties acquired through corrupt means followedconfiscation of properties acquired through corrupt means followedconfiscation of properties acquired through corrupt means followed as a matter of law under Section 13 of the Special Courts Act. as a matter of law under Section 13 of the Special Courts Act. as a matter of law under Section 13 of the Special Courts Act. Mr. Das further argued that the applications under Section 243 Cr. P. C. ,Das further argued that the applications under Section 243 Cr. P. C. ,Das further argued that the applications under Section 243 Cr. P. C.
, filedfiledfiled long long long after after after the the the conviction, conviction, conviction, intended intended intended only only only to to to delay delay delay the the the confiscation process, and lack any substantive merit. He asserts theconfiscation process, and lack any substantive merit. He asserts theconfiscation process, and lack any substantive merit. He asserts the AppellantAppellantAppellant had had had ample ample ample opportunity opportunity opportunity during during during the the the trial trial trial to to to pro pro produce evidence and examine witnesses, and having failed to do so, couldevidence and examine witnesses, and having failed to do so, couldevidence and examine witnesses, and having failed to do so, could notnot now now seek seek to to re re-openopen or or supplement supplement the the defence defence through through collateral proceedings. Mr. Das also emphasised that the Authorisedcollateral proceedings. Mr.
Das also emphasised that the Authorisedcollateral proceedings. Mr. Das also emphasised that the Authorised Officer rightly found the applications to be vague, speculaOfficer rightly found the applications to be vague, speculaOfficer rightly found the applications to be vague, speculative, and procedurally unwarranted at the postprocedurally unwarranted at the post-conviction stage. He addedconviction stage. He added thatthatthat the the the confiscation confiscation confiscation proceedings, proceedings, proceedings, being being being civil civil civil in in in nature nature nature and and and summary in scope, cannot serve as a platform to relitigate orsummary in scope, cannot serve as a platform to relitigate orsummary in scope, cannot serve as a platform to relitigate or CRLA No.
490 of 20of 2025 & challenge findings already rendered in a criminal trial, anchallenge findings already rendered in a criminal trial, anchallenge findings already rendered in a criminal trial, and hence, no illegality or procedural lapse exists in the impugned orders. no illegality or procedural lapse exists in the impugned orders. no illegality or procedural lapse exists in the impugned orders. 5. The present Criminal Appeal, i. e. , CRLA No. 490 of 2025,The present Criminal Appeal, i. e. , CRLA No. 490 of 2025,The present Criminal Appeal, i. e. , CRLA No. 490 of 2025, has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the orders datedhas been preferred by the Appellant challenging the orders datedhas been preferred by the Appellant challenging the orders dated 23. 09. 202423. 09. 202423. 09. 2024 and and and 20. 03. 2025 20. 03. 2025 20. 03.
2025 passed passed passed by by by the the the learned learned learned Authorised Authorised Authorised Officer,fficer,fficer, Special Special Special Court, Court, Court, Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, whereby whereby whereby the the the Appellant Appellant Appellant’s applications filed under Section 243 Cr. P. C. seeking summoning ofapplications filed under Section 243 Cr. P. C. seeking summoning ofapplications filed under Section 243 Cr. P. C. seeking summoning of witnesseswitnesseswitnesses were were were rejected. rejected. rejected. In In In addition, addition, addition, the the the Appellant Appellant Appellant has has has also also also questioned the validity of the cognizance taken in the confiscationquestioned the validity of the cognizance taken in the confiscationquestioned the validity of the cognizance taken in the confiscation proceedings under the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006. It may beroceedings under the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006.
It may beroceedings under the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006. It may be noted that the Appellantnoted that the Appellant’s earlier appeal, CRLA No. 134 of 2018,s earlier appeal, CRLA No. 134 of 2018, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 05. 02. 2018 passed inchallenging the judgment of conviction dated 05. 02. 2018 passed inchallenging the judgment of conviction dated 05. 02. 2018 passed in T. R. No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 by the learned Special Judge, SpeT. R. No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 by the learned Special Judge, SpeT. R. No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar, remains pending consideration before thisCourt, Bhubaneswar, remains pending consideration before thisCourt, Bhubaneswar, remains pending consideration before this Court. Court. Court.
During During During the the the course course course of of of hearing, hearing, hearing, learned learned learned counsel counsel counsel for for for the the the Appellant submitted that the prayer in the present CRLA is notAppellant submitted that the prayer in the present CRLA is notAppellant submitted that the prayer in the present CRLA is not confined to procedural issues in the confiscation proceeding, butconfined to procedural issues in the confiscation proceeding, butconfined to procedural issues in the confiscation proceeding, but substantially aims to undermine the confiscation itself, by seekingsubstantially aims to undermine the confiscation itself, by seekingsubstantially aims to undermine the confiscation itself, by seeking to lead further evidence. It is, therefore, argued that admitting suchto lead further evidence. It is, therefore, argued that admitting suchto lead further evidence.
It is, therefore, argued that admitting such evidence in the confiscation proceeding may affect the merits of theevidence in the confiscation proceeding may affect the merits of theevidence in the confiscation proceeding may affect the merits of the conviction appeal as well. conviction appeal as well. 6. TheThe Appellant Appellant filed filed twotwo successive successive applications applications under under SectionSectionSection 243 243 243 Cr. P. C. Cr. P. C. Cr. P. C. during during during the the the pendency pendency pendency of of of confiscation confiscation confiscation proceedings initiated after his conviction. proceedings initiated after his conviction. The First Application,The First Application, dated 05. 12. 2023, sought the issuance of summons to witnesses indated 05. 12. 2023, sought the issuance of summons to witnesses indated 05. 12.
2023, sought the issuance of summons to witnesses in defence of the Appellantdefence of the Appellant’s claim regarding lawful acquisition of theegarding lawful acquisition of the properties. However, the application did not specify the names ofproperties. However, the application did not specify the names ofproperties. However, the application did not specify the names of CRLA No. 490 of 20of 2025 & thethethe proposed proposed proposed witnesses witnesses witnesses or or or the the the reasons reasons reasons for for for their their their examination. examination. examination. Consequently, the learned Authorised Officer rejected the saidConsequently, the learned Authorised Officer rejected the saidConsequently, the learned Authorised Officer rejected the said application by order dated 23. 0application by order dated 23. 09. 2024, holding it to be a vague and9.
2024, holding it to be a vague and unsubstantiated petition, evidently filed to delay the proceedings,unsubstantiated petition, evidently filed to delay the proceedings,unsubstantiated petition, evidently filed to delay the proceedings, particularly in light of the fact that the Appellant had already beenparticularly in light of the fact that the Appellant had already beenparticularly in light of the fact that the Appellant had already been convicted. The Second Application, dated 03. 10. 2024, was filedThe Second Application, dated 03. 10. 2024, was filedThe Second Application, dated 03. 10. 2024, was filed subsequent to thesubsequent to the rejection of the earlier petition. This time, therejection of the earlier petition. This time, the Appellant provided a detailed list of witnesses along with specificAppellant provided a detailed list of witnesses along with specificAppellant provided a detailed list of witnesses along with specific reasons for seeking their examination.
Nevertheless, the learnedreasons for seeking their examination. Nevertheless, the learnedreasons for seeking their examination. Nevertheless, the learned AuthorisedAuthorisedAuthorised Officer, Officer, Officer, by by by order order order dated dated dated 20. 03. 2025, 20. 03. 2025, 20. 03. 2025, dismissed dismissed dismissed the the the application once again, holding that the Appellant having alreadyonce again, holding that the Appellant having alreadyonce again, holding that the Appellant having already been convicted, there existed no scope to reintroduce or expand hisbeen convicted, there existed no scope to reintroduce or expand hisbeen convicted, there existed no scope to reintroduce or expand his defence through the confiscation proceeding. The order furtherdefence through the confiscation proceeding. The order furtherdefence through the confiscation proceeding.
The order further recordedrecordedrecorded that that that allowing allowing allowing such such such a a a request request request would would would only only only result result result in in in protraction of the matter without serving any useful purpose. of the matter without serving any useful purpose. of the matter without serving any useful purpose. 7.
It was fairly admitted by learned counsel for the AppellantIt was fairly admitted by learned counsel for the AppellantIt was fairly admitted by learned counsel for the Appellant during the hearing that the defence now sought to be introducedduring the hearing that the defence now sought to be introducedduring the hearing that the defence now sought to be introduced was never raised during the trial, and that no application forwas never raised during the trial, and that no application forwas never raised during the trial, and that no application for summoning such witnsummoning such witnesses was made at any point prior to theesses was made at any point prior to the conviction dated 05. 02. 2018. Notably, by that time, the Appellantconviction dated 05. 02. 2018. Notably, by that time, the Appellantconviction dated 05. 02. 2018. Notably, by that time, the Appellant had already filed CRLA No. 134 of 2018, and the confiscationhad already filed CRLA No.
134 of 2018, and the confiscationhad already filed CRLA No. 134 of 2018, and the confiscation proceedingsproceedingsproceedings under under under the the the Orissa Orissa Orissa Special Special Special Courts Courts Courts Act Act Act were were were also also also underway. 8. For better appreciatFor better appreciation of the case at hand, it is imperativeion of the case at hand, it is imperative on the Court to examine the scope and application of Section 243 ofon the Court to examine the scope and application of Section 243 ofon the Court to examine the scope and application of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thatthe Code of Criminal Procedure, that reads as – CRLA No.
490 of 20of 2025 & (1) The accused shall then be called upon to enterThe accused shall then be called upon to enterThe accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if tupon his defence and produce his evidence; and if tupon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrateaccused puts in any written statement, the Magistrateaccused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record. shall file it with the record.
(2) If the accused, after he had entered upon hisIf the accused, after he had entered upon hisIf the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any processdefence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any processdefence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for thefor compelling the attendance of any witness for thefor compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of epurpose of examination or cross-examination, or theexamination, or the productionproductionproduction of of of any any any document document document or or or other other other thing, thing, thing, the the the MagistrateMagistrateMagistrate shall shall shall issue issue issue such such such process process process unless unless unless he he he considers that such application should be refused onconsiders that such application should be refused onconsiders that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexationthe ground that it is made for the purpose of vexationthe ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or foror delay or for defeating the ends of justice and suchdefeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing;ground shall be recorded by him in writing; Provided that, when the accused has crossProvided that, when the accused has cross-examinedexamined oror had had the the opportunity opportunity of of cross cross-examiningexamining any any witness before entering on his defence, the attendancewitness before entering on his defence, the attendancewitness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shalof such witness shall not be compelled under thisl not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it issection, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it issection, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.
necessary for the ends of justice. (3) The Magistrate may, before summoning anyThe Magistrate may, before summoning anyThe Magistrate may, before summoning any witnesswitness on on an an application application under under Sub Sub-SectionSection (2), (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurredrequire that the reasonable expenses incurredrequire that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial bewitness in attending for the purposes of the trial bewitness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court. deposited in Court. 9. The aforesaid provision provides the procedural mechanismThe aforesaid provision provides the procedural mechanismThe aforesaid provision provides the procedural mechanism by which an accused may lead defence evidence during the trial of aby which an accused may lead defence evidence during the trial of aby which an accused may lead defence evidence during the trial of a warrant case.
The provision, by its very structurwarrant case. The provision, by its very structure, applies only priore, applies only prior to the conclusion of trial, and is intended to enable the accused toto the conclusion of trial, and is intended to enable the accused toto the conclusion of trial, and is intended to enable the accused to establish his defence before the court reaches a finding of guilt. establish his defence before the court reaches a finding of guilt. establish his defence before the court reaches a finding of guilt. Once a judgment of conviction has been rendered, as in the presentOnce a judgment of conviction has been rendered, as in the presentOnce a judgment of conviction has been rendered, as in the present case, the trial stands concludecase, the trial stands concluded, and the stage for adducing defenced, and the stage for adducing defence evidence stands closed. The law does not contemplate a secondevidence stands closed.
The law does not contemplate a secondevidence stands closed. The law does not contemplate a second opportunityopportunityopportunity to to to reconstruct reconstruct reconstruct or or or supplement supplement supplement the the the defence defence defence through through through collateral proceedings such as confiscation. More importantly, thecollateral proceedings such as confiscation. More importantly, thecollateral proceedings such as confiscation. More importantly, the CRLA No. 490 of 20of 2025 & confiscation proceedings areconfiscation proceedings are not a retrial, and cannot be convertednot a retrial, and cannot be converted into a forum for introducing material which was consciously orinto a forum for introducing material which was consciously orinto a forum for introducing material which was consciously or negligently omitted at the stage of trial. negligently omitted at the stage of trial. 10.
The contention that the opportunity to examine witnesses inThe contention that the opportunity to examine witnesses inThe contention that the opportunity to examine witnesses in the confiscation proceedings is central to the Apthe confiscation proceedings is central to the Appellant’s defencepellant’s defence and necessary to rectify alleged omissions made during trial doesand necessary to rectify alleged omissions made during trial doesand necessary to rectify alleged omissions made during trial does notnotnot merit merit merit acceptance acceptance acceptance at at at this this this stage. stage. stage. The The The Appellant Appellant Appellant was was was duly duly duly represented during the trial in T. R. No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 and hadrepresented during the trial in T. R. No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 and hadrepresented during the trial in T. R. No. 21/43 of 2012/2002 and had sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence andsufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and contest the findings.
contest the findings. The plea that the confiscation proceedings may serve as a forum toThe plea that the confiscation proceedings may serve as a forum toThe plea that the confiscation proceedings may serve as a forum to supplement or revisit the defence postsupplement or revisit the defence post-conviction is misconceived. conviction is misconceived. Such a course would not only defeat the object of the SpecialSuch a course would not only defeat the object of the SpecialSuch a course would not only defeat the object of the Special Courts Act but would also amount to rCourts Act but would also amount to reopening matters alreadyeopening matters already concluded in trial. If any aspect of income or property valuationconcluded in trial. If any aspect of income or property valuationconcluded in trial.
If any aspect of income or property valuation was overlooked or misappreciated, it is for the appellate court inwas overlooked or misappreciated, it is for the appellate court inwas overlooked or misappreciated, it is for the appellate court in CRLA No. 134 of 2018 to examine the same in the context of theCRLA No. 134 of 2018 to examine the same in the context of theCRLA No. 134 of 2018 to examine the same in the context of the convictionconviction itself. itself. This This Court Court canno cannott permit permit a a fragmented fragmented or or collateral attempt to alter the effect of the conviction throughcollateral attempt to alter the effect of the conviction throughcollateral attempt to alter the effect of the conviction through evidence introduced belatedly in a parallel proceeding, which isevidence introduced belatedly in a parallel proceeding, which isevidence introduced belatedly in a parallel proceeding, which is clearly an afterthought. clearly an afterthought. 11.
Moreover, the Appellant’s present challenge appears to be aMoreover, the Appellant’s present challenge appears to be aMoreover, the Appellant’s present challenge appears to be a collateral attack on the legality of the confiscation proceedingsk on the legality of the confiscation proceedingsk on the legality of the confiscation proceedings without actually seeking or obtaining relief against the conviction,without actually seeking or obtaining relief against the conviction,without actually seeking or obtaining relief against the conviction, which continues to stand unless set aside in CRLA No. 134 of 2018. which continues to stand unless set aside in CRLA No. 134 of 2018. which continues to stand unless set aside in CRLA No. 134 of 2018.
The confiscation proceeding, it must be reiterated, is a statutoryThe confiscation proceeding, it must be reiterated, is a statutoryThe confiscation proceeding, it must be reiterated, is a statutory consequence of the conviction recorded under the Prevention ofsequence of the conviction recorded under the Prevention ofsequence of the conviction recorded under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Once a conviction is recorded by the Special CourtCorruption Act. Once a conviction is recorded by the Special CourtCorruption Act. Once a conviction is recorded by the Special Court CRLA No.
490 of 20of 2025 & for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the jurisdictionfor offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the jurisdictionfor offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer under Section 13 of the Orissa Spof the Authorised Officer under Section 13 of the Orissa Spof the Authorised Officer under Section 13 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 is triggered. The object of the legislation is toCourts Act, 2006 is triggered. The object of the legislation is toCourts Act, 2006 is triggered.
The object of the legislation is to enable the State to promptly recover and vest in itself any propertyenable the State to promptly recover and vest in itself any propertyenable the State to promptly recover and vest in itself any property deemed to have been acquired through corrupt means, withoutdeemed to have been acquired through corrupt means, withoutdeemed to have been acquired through corrupt means, without requiring a separate adjudication of guilt. Thus, therequiring a separate adjudication of guilt. Thus, the confiscation isconfiscation is not the result of a fresh judicial inquiry, but flows directly from thenot the result of a fresh judicial inquiry, but flows directly from thenot the result of a fresh judicial inquiry, but flows directly from the finding of guilt recorded by the competent criminal court. It is not afinding of guilt recorded by the competent criminal court. It is not afinding of guilt recorded by the competent criminal court.
It is not a retrial or an adjudication on culpability but a consequential step toretrial or an adjudication on culpability but a consequential step toretrial or an adjudication on culpability but a consequential step to vest such tainted propertyvest such tainted property in the State. The claim that examinationin the State. The claim that examination of witnesses in the confiscation stage would materially impact theof witnesses in the confiscation stage would materially impact theof witnesses in the confiscation stage would materially impact the pendingpendingpending appeal appeal appeal is is is therefore unfounded, as therefore unfounded, as therefore unfounded, as the defence of the the defence of the the defence of the Appellant must be assessed primarily within the scope of CRLAAppellant must be assessed primarily within the scope of CRLAAppellant must be assessed primarily within the scope of CRLA No. 134 of 2018. No. 134 of 2018. 12.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the confiscationAccordingly, this Court is of the view that the confiscationAccordingly, this Court is of the view that the confiscation proceedings,proceedings,proceedings, being being being a a a statutory statutory statutory consequence consequence consequence of of of the the the conviction, conviction, conviction, cannot be challenged in a fragmented or collateral manner withoutcannot be challenged in a fragmented or collateral manner withoutcannot be challenged in a fragmented or collateral manner without first securing relief against the conviction itself. first securing relief against the conviction itself.
Furthermore,Furthermore, the examination of new witnesses at the posthe examination of new witnesses at the post-convictionconvictionconviction stage stage stage is is is not not not permissible permissible permissible in in in law, law, law, and and and the the the learned learned learned Authorised Officer, in rejecting both applications under Section 243Authorised Officer, in rejecting both applications under Section 243Authorised Officer, in rejecting both applications under Section 243 Cr. P. C. , acted well within jurisdiction and in accordance with theCr. P. C. , acted well within jurisdiction and in accordance with theCr. P. C. , acted well within jurisdiction and in accordance with the legal framework. The findings that such applications were vague,. The findings that such applications were vague,.
The findings that such applications were vague, belated, and intended to delay the proceedings or reopen issuesbelated, and intended to delay the proceedings or reopen issuesbelated, and intended to delay the proceedings or reopen issues already concluded during trial, do not warrant interference. In viewalready concluded during trial, do not warrant interference. In viewalready concluded during trial, do not warrant interference. In view of the above, the presentof the above, the present Appeal is devoid of merit. CRLA No. 490 of 20of 2025 & 13. Since the prayers maSince the prayers made in the present appeal, i. e. , CRLAde in the present appeal, i. e. , CRLA No. 490 of 2025, have been duly considered and answered herein,No. 490 of 2025, have been duly considered and answered herein,No.
490 of 2025, have been duly considered and answered herein, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of thethis Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of thethis Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the statutory appeal filed in CRLA No. 134 of 2018, which shall bestatutory appeal filed in CRLA No. 134 of 2018, which shall bestatutory appeal filed in CRLA No. 134 of 2018, which shall be heard and adjudicated iheard and adjudicated in accordance with law on its own merits. n accordance with law on its own merits. 14. InInIn light light light of of of the the the above above above discussion, discussion, discussion, this this this Court Court Court finds finds finds no no no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 23. 09. 2024 andillegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 23. 09. 2024 andillegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 23. 09. 2024 and 20. 03. 202520. 03. 202520. 03.
2025 passed passed passed by by by the the the learned learned learned Authorised Authorised Authorised Officer Officer Officer, Special Court, BhubaneswarCourt, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, CRLA No. 490 of 2025 standsCRLA No. 490 of 2025 stands disposed of. (Chittaranjan Dash)(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge A. K. Pradhan/Bijay CRLA No. 490 of 20of 2025 &
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.