Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj @ Anna Orea vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3070 Jhar

                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(Cr) No. 333 of 2012

 Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj @ Anna Orea                        .......... Petitioner
                          Versus

The State of Jharkhand through CBI (AHD, Ranchi.
                                                 ......        Respondent
                             ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                           ---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the C.B.I      : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
                     Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
                  .................

20/Dated: 22/08/2023

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.05.2011

contained in annexure-7 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I in Miscellaneous

(Civil) Case No. 41/1997 whereby he has been pleased to reject the application dated

11.06.2009 filed by the petitioner for releasing the moveable and immoveable

property standing in her name. Further prayer has been made to release the

moveable and immoveable properties of the petitioner.

3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the husband of this petitioner is made accused in about 20 cases of animal

husbandry when he was posted as Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, South

Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi. He submits that the petitioner is the wife of said Junul

Bhengraj and she is having her own income as she was discharging duty as a teacher

in the district of Dhanbad. He submits that the case of RC Case No. 2(A)/99 was

registered for disproportionate assets against the husband of the petitioner and in the

chargesheet she has been implicated in view of that she has faced trial with regard to

RC Case No. 2(A)/99. He submits that in the said trial this petitioner has been

acquitted by judgment dated 29.01.2005 and husband of the petitioner has been

convicted. He draws the attention of the Court to several paragraphs of the said

judgment contained in supplementary affidavit and submits that so far as

disproportionate assets is concerned that has not been proved against the petitioner

and she has been acquitted. He submits that subsequent to that the petitioner filed a

petition before the learned court for release of moveable and immoveable property

which has been rejected by the impugned order. He submits that once the petitioner

has been acquitted in RC Case No. 2(A)/99, the said application has been wrongly

rejected by the learned court without considering the relevant provisions made under

the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. He draws the attention of the Court

to Section 13 of the said Ordinance and submits that there are procedure prescribed

of disposal of attached property upon termination of criminal proceedings. He submits

that once the criminal proceeding has been terminated against the petitioner the

learned court was required to pass the order for release of attached property however,

the learned court has wrongly passed order on the ground that the appeal is pending

with regard to other R.C. cases and the attachment order has been confirmed by the

High Court. In this background he submits that the said order may kindly be quashed

and proper order may be passed for release of moveable and immoveable property of

the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of

the C.B.I. submits that the husband of the petitioner is an accused in about 20

fodder scam cases and the petition filed at Annexure-2 in RC Case No. 24 (A)/96/

PAT and in the said application there is no mention of the property with regard to RC

Case No. 2(A)/99 in which the petitioner has been acquitted. He submits that when

the subject matter of that R.C. is not prayed in Annexure-2 the said petition itself was

not maintainable. He further submits that there is procedure prescribed in the Criminal

Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 and Section 3 of said Act speaks of application for

attachment of property, section 4 speaks of ad interim attachment, and application

in this objection to attachment, section 5 speaks of investigation of objections to

attachment, section 6 speaks of attachment of property of male fide transferees,

section 7 speaks of execution of orders of attachment, section 8 speaks of security

in lieu of attachment, section 10 speaks of duration of attachment and section 13

speaks of disposal of attached property upon termination of criminal proceedings. He

submits that the procedure has been followed in view of above section and in view of

section 5 the objection was called upon however, the petitioner has failed to file any

objection and this petition has been filed only after attachment has been made

absolute. He submits that the said attachment was made on 25.02.1997 and the said

order of attachment was made absolute by order dated 20.01.2000. In this

background he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order as the

cases in which the husband of the petitioner has been convicted, appeal arising of

those cases are pending before this Court. He submits that the learned court has

rightly passed order.

5. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the

court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the husband of the

petitioner is accused in about 20 fodder scam cases. In one of the case the name of

petitioner has been cropped in the chargesheet i.e RC Case No. 2(A)/99 and

admittedly, the petitioner has been acquitted by judgment dated 29.01.2005 which is

with regard to disproportionate assets of the petitioner and her husband. Admittedly,

the petitioner is wife of Junul Bhengraj who is facing charge and he has been

convicted in most of the cases filed by the C.B.I. arising out of fodder scam cases

including in R.C. Case No. 2(A)/99.

6. Looking into Annexure-2 the petition filed by the petitioner for release of

moveable and immoveable property, there is no mention of RC Case No. 2(A)/99

which suggests that application is not there with regard to property arising of RC Case

No. 2(A)/99. The R.C. cases which are subject matter of Annexure-2 in the said

application the R.C. case has been disclosed in which the husband of the petitioner

has been convicted and for that the appeal is pending before the High Court. There

are procedure prescribed in Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. The

document brought on record suggests that competent authority has directed to

make an application for attachment of the property with regard to R.C cases pursuant

to that application was filed. By order dated 25.02.1997 attachment order was passed

and said was made absolute by order date 20.01.2000. The petitioner has chosen not

to file objection in view of section 5 of the said Ordinance and admittedly in view of

section 10 duration of attachment will be upto the termination of the criminal

proceeding for which there is attachment order and section 13 speaks of procedure

for disposal of attached property after termination of criminal proceeding. Admittedly,

the application made with regard to release of the property are with regard to other

R.C. Cases and not with regard to RC Case No. 2(A)/99 in which the petitioner has

been acquitted and in view of this the petitioner has not been able to make out the

case differentiating the things of the property which she has acquired pursuant to her

own income and those properties are with regard to other R.C. cases in which the

husband of the petitioner has been convicted.

7. In the above background on reading the provision made in section 10

along with section 13 of the said Ordinance, it appears that the attachment will come

to an end when the criminal proceeding is terminated and the procedure is prescribed

under section 13 of the said Ordinance. It appears that the petitioner has not been

able to make out the case that termination of cases with regard to attachment have

been terminated however it is an admitted fact that the appeal is pending before the

High Court with regard to R.C. cases which are subject matter of Annexure-2, the

application filed by the petitioner for release of the property.

8. In view of above facts, the stage of section 13 of Ordinance has not

come as the cases have not been terminated as yet particularly, there is no prayer

with regard to release of property with regard to RC Case No. 2(A)/99.

9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there

is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any,

stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/