Sujata Rout vs State Of Odisha (Vigillance) And Others

A.C. Behera, J

This is an Appeal under Section 17 (1) of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006, which has been preferred by the Appellant challenging an order passed on dated 21.01.2023 in C.C. No.3 of 2017 by the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar.

The factual backgrounds of this Appeal, which prompted the Appellant for preferring the same is that, the Appellant had filed two petitions in C.C. No.3 of 2017 pending in the Court of Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar.

First Petition was filed for exclusion of some properties i.e. first floor of the building in Mouza-Mandua, Tahasil- Keonjhar on Plot No.173, Khata No.38/3 in the District of Kenojhar and MIZ Plot No.K-9A-390, Kalinganagar, P.S.-Tamando, Bhubaneswar District-Khurda from the matter of adjudication relating to confiscation.

Second petition was filed praying for providing her an opportunity to participate in the hearing of the said case vide C.C. No.3 of 2017.

In the above first petition of the Appellant for exclusion of the above properties from the case, the Appellant had stated that, the properties in respect of which, she has prayed for exclusion stands recorded in the name of her mother (Sabita Nayak) exclusively, who was the Opposite Party No.3 in that C.C. No.3 of 2017 and as her mother Sabita Nayak has expired in the meanwhile and as she (Appellant-Sujata Rout) is the only successor of her deceased mother, the aforesaid properties left by her mother has devolved upon her and accordingly, she has become the owners of the said properties. Therefore, her said properties are required to be excluded from the confiscation proceeding vide C.C. No.3 of 2017.

In the above second petition of the Appellant for providing her opportunity to participate in the hearing of C.C. No.3 of 2017, she had stated that, as, she (Appellant) has become the exclusive owner of the above properties left by her mother Sabita Nayak (Opposite party No.3 in C.C. No.3 of 2017) by inheriting the same from her mother, for which, she (Appellant) is required to be heard in C.C. No.3 of 2017..

I have already heard from Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Appellant and as well as from Mr. Das, learned senior standing counsel for the Vigilance Department.

It appears from the impugned order that, the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar has rejected the above 1st petition of the Appellant assigning the reasons that, the matter relating to the exclusive ownership of the Applicant (Sujata Rout) over the properties in question can only be decided after elicitation of evidence of both the sides in the original case vide T.R. Case No.4 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC, 1860 against Shri Ajay Kumar Naik and Smt.Rina Routray (those being husband and wife respectively are the accused persons in T.R. Case No.4 of 2017). Therefore, if before closure of evidence in Vigilance Case No. T.R. No.4 of 2017, any order for exclusion of any involved properties in C.C. No.3 of 2017 will be passed, the same will be prejudicial to the interest of State.

Likewise, the Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar also rejected the above second petition of the Applicant (Sujata Rout) by assigning the reasons that, the C.C. No.3 of 2017 is the outcome of vigilance case vide T.R. No.4 of 2017 and the Applicant (Sujata Rout) has not been arrayed as an accused in that said vigilance case vide T.R. No.4 of 2017, for which, the question of providing her any opportunity of being heard in C.C. No.3 of 2017 does not arise.

The reasons assigned above by the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar for rejection of the above two petitions of the Applicant Sujata Rout (who is the Appellant in this Appeal) are not unreasonable. Because, the C.C. No.3 of 2017 has arisen out of Vigilance Case vide T.R. No.4 of 2017, which is subjudice in the Court of Special Judge, Bhubaneswar against only two accused persons i.e. Ajay Kumar Nayak and his wife Rina Routray, wherein, the Appellant/Petitioner (Sujata Rout) has not been arrayed as an accused and in T.R. No.4 of 2017, it has been alleged on behalf of the prosecution that, the above properties, those records stand in the name of Sabita Rout were purchased by the accused No.1 Ajay Kumar Nayak from the money acquired through corruption in the name of Sabita Nayak (who has expired). For which, prior to the adjudication of that vigilance case vide T.R. No.4 of 2017, it is not possible to state, whether the said properties (those are in the name of the deceased Sabita Nayak) are her exclusive properties or not.

As per the discussions made above, when it is held that, the reasons assigned by the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 for rejection of the above two petitions of the Appellant (Sujata Rout) are not unreasonable, for which, the question of interfering with the same through this Appeal does not arise.

Therefore, there is no merit in the Appeal of the Appellant. The same must fail.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed on contest being devoid of any merit.

Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of finally.

……………………………..