[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Simadri Nayak vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) on 23 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A. No. 609 of 2026
(Arising out of CRLA No. 233 of 2026)
(An application under Sub-Section (2) of the Section 17 of the
Special Courts Act, 2006)
1. Simadri Nayak
2. Laxmi @ Bijayalaxmi Nayak .... Appellants
-versus-
1. State of Odisha (Vigilance)
2. Usharani Nayak
3. Madhuri Nayak .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellants : Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash,
Senior Advocate
with Mr. S. Priyadarsan, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Srimanta Das,
Senior Standing Counsel
(for Vigilance)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing 17.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 23.03.2026
Savitri Ratho, J. The appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Authorised Officer,
Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No. 12 of 2015
fixing the valuation of the properties at Rs.2,50,44,029/- (Rupees
two crore fifty lakh forty-four thousand twenty-nine) and
directing the same to be confiscated to the Govt. of Odisha free
from all encumbrances. It has also been directed that the
Opposite Parties are at liberty to deposit the present market value
of the properties within a period of 30 days from the date of
service of copy of this order and on failure to deposit the said
amount, the properties in Schedule "A" and "B" shall be
confiscated to the State free from all encumbrances.
2. This interim application has been filed for staying
operation of the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2026 passed by
the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar (in
short "Authorised Officer"), in Confiscation Case No.12 of 2015
during pendency of the appeal.
3. The Appellants have been convicted for commission of
offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "P.C. Act") and
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") vide
judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed in TR No 07/35 of 2014/2012,
by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar and
sentenced thereunder. They have challenged this judgment in
Criminal Appeal No. 1409 of 2023 filed before this Court.
4. The check period in this case has been taken from
30.04.1987, i.e., the date of Appellant No.1 joining in State
Govt. Service till 22.04.2009 i.e., date of his house search.
Disproportionate assets acquired by him during the check
period was found to be Rs.50, 85,958.23 p. This was calculated
by adding his expenditure (Rs.27,21,694/-) to the value of
assets (Rs.50,85,710/-) acquired by him during the check
period and deducting his income from known sources. (Rs
27,21,746/-) from that amount.
Valuation of assets which have been directed to be
confiscated by the impugned judgment as per the
chargesheet / judgment in TR No 7/35 of 2014/2012.
5. The total cost/ value of the two storeyed building and
the land on which it is constructed in Rayagada had been
valued at Rs.41,500/- + Rs.21,58, 413 /- = Rs.21,99,913/-.
The total cost of the two plots and the two buildings
constructed on them in Nabarangpur had been valued to be Rs
20,000+ Rs 2,500 + Rs 3,36,189- = Rs.3,58,689/-.
The total value of 32 gms of gold ornaments which has
been given in the zima of the Appellants was assessed to be
Rs.25,600/-.
The amount of cash seized and other deposits was
found to be Rs.8,73,694/-.
Market Value of assets, directed to be confiscated, as per
the impugned judgment in Confiscation Case no.12 of 2015
6. The market value of the land in Rayagada has been
assessed to be Rs.59,75,000/ - and the market value of the
double storeyed building standing in the plot has been assessed
to be Rs.66,46,552/-. Total value Rs.1,26,22,552/-.
7. The market value of the two plots in Nabarangpur has
been taken to be Rs 2,66,750 + Rs 26,675/- = 2,93,425/- and
the market value of the two buildings standing thereon have
been taken to be Rs.7,38,895/- + Rs.7,38,895/- =
Rs.14,77,790/-. Total value Rs.17,71,215/-.
8. The market value of the gold has been assessed at
Rs.4,54,400/-.
9. The market value of the cash and other deposits have
been assessed to be Rs.87,36,940/- by the Authorized Officer.
SUBMISSIONS
APPELLANT
10. Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned Senior Counsel for
the Appellants submitted that CRLA No. 1409 of 2023 filed by
the appellants, challenging their conviction and sentence under
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act and
Section 109 of the IPC and is pending for disposal before this
Court. During pendency of the trial, Confiscation Case No.12 of
2015 was initiated and by the impugned judgment dated
17.02.2026, the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court,
Bhubaneswar, has directed the Appellants to deposit a sum of
Rs.2,50,44,029/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs Forty Four
Thousand Twenty Nine only) within a period of 30 days, failing
which the properties indicated therein will be confiscated to the
State.
11. He has submitted that Appellant No.1 has retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation. Appellant No.2 is
his wife. They are staying at Panchavati Nagar, Rayagada in the
building standing over plot No.126/5678, which was purchased
in the name of the appellant No.2 in 1998. Except his provisional
pension, the appellant No.1 has no other source of income and
therefore, it is impossible on his part to furnish the market value
of the property as assessed by the learned Authorized Officer to
save it from confiscation. He has also submitted that it will also
be next to impossible to furnish the Bank Guarantee to the tune
of the market value of the immovable properties indicated in the
impugned judgment as it is an exorbitant amount. The Appellants
do not have any alternate place of accommodation, if then
residential building is confiscated to the State. On account of
their failure to deposit the market value of the building.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submitted
that, the appellants have three storey buildings, one at Rayagada
and the other two at Nabarangpur. They are residing in the
double storied building constructed over an area of Ac.0.083
under Plot No.126/5678, Khata No.50/6069 in Mouza: Rayagada.
The value of the land and the two storied building are indicated
separately under serial nos.1 & 4 of Schedule 'A' of the impugned
Judgment. The other two buildings constructed over Plot nos.24
& 23, each measuring Ac.0.05 under Khata Nos.159 & 160
respectively in Mouza Nabarangpur, have been let out or rent by
the appellant No.2 in favour of monthly tenants. Values of those
two plots are stated at serial nos. 2 & 3 and values of the two
buildings have been indicated at serial No.5 of Schedule 'A' of
the impugned Judgment.
13. Referring to Section 434 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") (which corresponds to
Section 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), he
submitted that the impugned Judgment attains finality only upon
disposal of the appeal against conviction which is pending before
this Hon'ble Court. The appellants have a fair chance of success
in this appeal as well as the appeal challenging their conviction,
in T.R. Case No. 07/35 of 2014/2012, which are pending before
this Court. So the operation of the impugned judgment should be
stayed during pendency of CRLA No. 1409 of 2023. In case of
acquittal, the Appellants may get back the monetary value of
their assets but will not be able to get back their residential house
in which they have been residing or their gold jewellery. They
will therefore suffer irreparable loss, unless the operation of the
impugned judgment is stayed.
14. He has also submitted that instead of directing the
appellants to deposit Rs.2,50,44,029/-, for the entire assets, the
learned Authorized Officer should have limited it to the value of
the immovable property i.e. a sum of Rs.1,43,93,767/-only, as
being the market value of the immovable property indicated
under Schedule 'A'. A further sum of Rs.19,13,322/-, being the
value of certain term deposits, Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs), fixed
deposits and gold ornaments weighing 32 Grams, it becomes
Rs.1,63,07,089/-. But the amount of cash of Rs.8,73,694/- found
in the locker has been multiplied by ten times and added to the
total market value of the property which is to be confiscated. He
has further submitted that the market value of the immovable
property indicated in Schedule 'A' & 'B' of the impugned
Judgment is nearly 50%.
15. Referring to the proviso to Section 15 (3) of the Special
Courts Act, he submitted that as per the proviso, the property
shall not be confiscated in the event the market price of the
property directed to be confiscated, is deposited with the
Authorized Officer within a period of thirty days. Thus, instead
of directing the appellants to deposit Rs.2,50,44,029/-, the
learned Authorized Officer should have limited it to the value of
the immovable property i.e. a sum of Rs.1,43,93,767/-only, as
being the market value of the immovable property indicated
under Schedule 'A'. A further sum of Rs.19,13,322/-, being the
value of certain term deposits, Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs), fixed
deposits and gold ornaments weighing 32 Grams, it becomes
Rs.1,63,07,089/-. But the amount of cash of Rs.8,73,694/- found
in the locker has been multiplied ten times and added while
directing the appellants to deposit the amount of
Rs.2,50,44,029/-. The value of the items indicated in Schedule 'A'
& 'B' of the impugned Judgment would show that the present
market value of the immovable property is nearly 50% of the
total amount which was directed to be deposited.
16. Relying on the order passed in CRLA No. 1125 of 2025
(Nirakar Rout and another Vs. State (Vigilance)), he has
submitted that operation of the impugned Judgment may be
directed to remain stayed subject to the appellants, furnishing the
Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.46,89,778/-. He also submitted
that Rs.46,89,778/-, is the value of movable & immovable assets,
and a sum of Rs. 1,06,50,262/- in the shape of bank deposits,
KVPs, the value of the gold ornaments and the cash deposits are
in the custody of the Vigilance Department.
17. Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned Senior Counsel for
the Appellants has relied on the decisions of this Court in case of
Damodar Das and Another vs. State of Odisha, Department of
Vigilance (CRLA No. 682 of 2023 Judgment dated 07.05.2024),
and the orders passed by this Court in :-
i) Nirakar Rout vs. State of Odisha (G.A.) (CRLA No. 1125 of
2025, order dated 16.10.2025)
ii) Shri Sanatan Sethy vs. State of Odisha (Vig.) (CRLA No.
411 of 2023, order dated 15.05.2023)
iii) Jalandhar Pradhan and another vs State (CRLA 128 of
2012, order dated 1.03.2022 and order dated 05.04.2022)
RESPONDENT
18. Mr. Srimanta Das, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the Respondent No.1 -Vigilance has submitted that the appellant
has been convicted in TR No 07/35 of 2014/2012 by the Special
Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar and his disproportionate
assets have been held to be to the tune of Rs.38,40,769/-.
Criminal Appeal No.1409 of 2023 challenging this judgment, is
pending before this Court, but the operation of the judgment or
the conviction has not been stayed by this Court. He has
submitted that in the confiscation proceeding as per direction of
the Authorized Officer the present market value of the movable
and immovable assets under confiscation have been assessed to
the tune of Rs.2,50,44,029/-, which the Authorized officer has
directed the appellant to deposit as per as per section 15(3) of the
Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006.
19. The appellants have challenged the market value of the
assets without any valid or cogent grounds. He has also
submitted that in the additional affidavit the appellant has
provided a statement giving the value of some properties
purported by at the time of their accusation and corresponding
market price calculated for the purpose of confiscation without
explaining as to why the present market price is not correct.
20. He has submitted that the properties proposed to be
confiscated are prima facie construed as proceeds of the crime
committed under the P.C. Act, and the Special Courts Act has
been enacted with the avowed purpose of curbing corruption by
holders of high public office. The provision to deposit the present
market value of the properties under confiscation is in
furtherance of the statutory intention of not allowing the accused
to enjoy the ill-gotten properties after his conviction unless they
deposit its market value. Therefore, in the circumstances the
appellants should be directed to deposit the present market price
of the properties under impugned order of confiscation to save
the same from confiscation as per statutory provision.
21. He has submitted that the gold ornaments have bene
released in the zima of the Appellants and are not in the custody
of the Vigilance Department.
22. Mr. Srimanta Das, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the Respondent No.1 -Vigilance has submitted the following
decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, for perusal of the
Court :-
i) Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar : AIR 2016 SC
1474,
ii) Nirakar Rout vs. State of Odisha (G.A.) (CRLA No. 1125 of
2025 order dated 16.10.2025),
iii) Pradip Kumar Barik @ Pradeep vs. State of Orissa (Vig.)
(CRLA NO. 278 OF 2025 order dated 04.03.2025), and
iv) Damodar Das and Another vs. State of Odisha, Department
of Vigilance (CRLA No. 682 of 2023 Judgment dated
07.05.2024).
ORDERS PASSED BY THIS COURT AND THE
SUPREME COURT
23. Interim order passed by this Court may not carry any
precedential value, but do have persuasive value.
Orders of this Court
In the case of Nirakar Rout (supra), this Court has
directed for stay of the impugned order of confiscation subject to
furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.10,44,629,00/- which was the
value of the disproportionate assets, while the market value of the
assets mentioned in the impugned order was about Rs.77 lakhs.
In the case of Pradip Kumar Barik (supra), this Court
had initially directed for stay of the impugned order of
confiscation on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs 30 lakhs.
Subsequently this Court passed an order of status quo till
disposal of the Appeal as it was submitted that the Appellants
with their family members were residing on the property and
they were unable to furnish the bank guarantee and the
Respondent asserted that possession of the property had been
taken, observing that the question of possession cannot be
resolved in view of the contesting claims.
In the case of Pradeep Kumar Barik (supra), this Court
directed for stay of the impugned order of confiscation subject to
furnishing bank guarantee of Rs 3 crores while the market value
of the assets had been mentioned as Rs 3 crores 10 lakhs in the
impugned order.
In the case of Sanatan Sethy (supra), this Court directed
for stay of the impugned order of confiscation, without any
condition
In the case of Damodar Das (supra), this Court has
partly allowed the Appeal challenging the order of confiscation,
directing for keeping in abeyance the impugned order till
disposal of the appeal challenging the judgment of conviction ,
subject to deposit of the amount of Rs.8,58,613/- which was the
amount of disproportionate assets mentioned in the judgment
convicting the appellant , with a further direction for keeping the
amount in an interest bearing account in a nationalised Bank.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
In the case of State of Vigilance vs Sudha Singh : 2026
INSC 272, where the State of Bihar had appealed against two
judgments of the High Court - dropping the Confiscation Case
and setting aside the proceedings against the co-accused, on the
ground of his death of the accused- government servant who had
been convicted under Section -7 and Section (13) (2) read with
Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act as the appeal of the main
accused against his conviction had abated on account of his
death. While setting aside the two judgments of the High Court,
the Supreme Court has held as follows :
"12. The BSCA is a special statute, enacted by the State
legislature after having received Presidential assent
therefor. The Act itself provides for the situations in which
the money/property confiscated thereunder can be
returned to the owner, making the legislative intent fairly
clear and obvious. They are: (a) modification or
annulment of the confiscation order by the High Court or
(b) acquittal by the Special Court. In other words, no
other possibilities have been accounted for. Here itself we
may deal with the argument advanced on part of the
respondent that the BSCA does not provide for substitution
of Legal representatives and so the proceedings cannot
continue. Such a submission is entirely misconceived for
the respondent had also been put to notice right at the
inception of proceedings along with the delinquent officer.
We are of the considered view that the only path available
to High Court was to decide the respondent's appeal on
merits for that route is the only one available to reach the
two possibilities contemplated under this Act.
13. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set
aside. The appeal is restored to the file of the High Court
and the same shall be decided on merits."
In the case of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal ( supra) , the
Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Orissa Special
Courts Act and in respect of Section 19 of the Act has held as
follows : -
"158. The language employed in Section 19 of the Orissa
Act has to be appreciated regard being had to the scheme
of the said Act. The legislative intent is to curb corruption
at high places and requires the accused persons to face
trial in the Special Court constituted under the Orissa Act
in a speedier manner and also to see that the beneficiaries
of ill-gotten property or money do not enjoy the property
or money during trial. That apart, the intention is also
clear that the Government should not appropriate the
money or the property to itself in any manner.
Confiscation, we have already opined, is done as an
interim measure. The words "free from all encumbrances"
have been given a restricted meaning by us as it follows
from the language used in the Orissa Act. Section 19
clearly lays down return of the confiscated money or
property or both. It conceives of three situations, namely,
modification of the order of confiscation, or annulment of
confiscation, or the eventual acquittal. In these conditions,
the money or property or both are required to be
returned."...
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
24. Section 434 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (in short "BNSS") provides as follows : -
"Judgments and orders passed by an Appellate Court
upon an appeal shall be final, except in the cases
provided for in section 418, section 419, sub-section (4)
of section 425 or Chapter XXXII:
Provided that notwithstanding the final disposal of
an appeal against conviction in any case, the Appellate
Court may hear and dispose of, on the merits,
(a) an appeal against acquittal under section 419,
arising out of the same case; or
(b) an appeal for the enhancement of sentence under
section 418, arising out of the same case.
Proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Orissa
Special Courts Act reads as follows:-
"Sec. 15 (3). xxx xxx xxx Provided that if the market
price of the property confiscated is deposited with the
Authorized Officer, the property shall not be
confiscated."
Section 19 of the Orissa Special Courts Act , is extracted
below :-
"19. Where an order of confiscation made under section 15
is modified or annulled by the High Court in appeal or
where the person affected is acquitted by the Special Court,
the money or property or both shall be returned to the
person affected and in case it is not possible for any reason
to return the property, such person shall be paid the price
thereof including the money so confiscated with the interest
at the rate of five percent per annum thereon calculated from
the date of confiscation."
ANALYSIS
25. CRLA No.1409 of 2023 where the appellants have
challenged their conviction and sentence is pending before this
Court. The order of sentence is deemed to have been suspended
as the Appellants have been granted bail and the realization of
fine has been stayed. But their conviction has not been stayed.
26. Appellant No.1 has admittedly superannuated from
service and is getting provisional pension. It has been stated on
affidavit that the Appellants alongwith their family are staying in
the double storeyed house situated at Rayagada and they do not
have any alternate accommodation.
27. Although, it has also been submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel for the Appellants that other than provisional
pension, the Appellant No. 1 has no other income, the Appellants
have themselves stated that the other two building in
Nabarangpur have been let out on monthly rent by Appellant No
2, so all these years admittedly income is being earned from the
rent from these two buildings.
Plot and double storeyed building in Rayagada
28. It has been submitted that the Appellants are staying in
the double storeyed building in Rayagada. I am therefore
satisfied that the appellants should furnish bank guarantee
equivalent to the value of the plot in Rayagada and double
storyed building standing on it as assessed in T.R. No.7 of 2014
by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar which
is Rs.21,99,913/- and not its the market value.
Plots and buildings in Nabarangpur
29. For the two plots in Nabarangpur and two building
standing thereon, the Appellants have admitted that building
have been let out on rent. So, the appellants shall furnish bank
guarantee as per their market value assessed by the Authorised
Officer which is Rs. 3,58,689/-.
Gold Jewellery
30. The gold ornaments have been given in zima of the
Appellants. As sentimental value is attached to ornaments and
this may be being used by the Appellants and their family
members, I am satisfied that the Appellants should furnish bank
guarantee equal to the value of the gold as assessed in T.R. Case
No. 07/35 of 2014/2012 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Bhubaneswar which is Rs. 25,600/- and not its market value.
Cash and other deposits
31. The rest of the assets which have been directed to be
confiscated to the State, includes cash and the value of the other
deposits which had been assessed to be Rs 8,73,694 by the
learned Special Judge and its market value has been assessed to
be Rs 87,63,940/- by the Authorised Officer , the Appellants will
not be prejudiced if the amount is confiscated to the State as
because if they succeed in CRLA No. 1409 of 2023, the amount
will be returned to them. It is therefore open to them to furnish
bank guarantee equivalent to the market value assessed by the
Authorized Officer which is Rs 87,63,940/-
CONCLUSION
32. In view of the above analysis and consideration of
submissions of the learned counsel, I am satisfied that the
operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed, if the
Appellants furnish bank guarantee for :-
i) the market value of the lands and buildings located at
Nabarangpur - Rs 17,71,215
ii) the market value of the cash and other deposits - Rs
87,36,940/-
iii) the original assessed value of the gold jewellery - Rs
25,600/-
iii) the original assessed value of the land and building
at Rayagada - Rs 21,99,913/-
Total amount - Rs 1,41,92,590/-.
The bank guarantee shall be furnished within a period of
three weeks from today. If the appellants do not furnish bank
guarantee for any particular assets(s) mentioned above, the said
asset(s) shall stand confiscated to the State after a period of three
weeks.
33. Needless to say that this order will be subject to the final
decision in this Appeal and in Criminal Appeal No.1409 of 2023.
34. The interim application is disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 23rd March, 2026/Sukanta
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 25-Mar-2026 22:40:57
