IMPORTANT POINT
Order passed by Designated Court under Section 84 Cr.P.C. insofar as it relates to the third party rights of claimant is only an interlocutory order and not final order and against it an appeal under Section 19 of TADA Act is not maintainable.

Headnote:(i) Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Sections 8 and 19-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 82 to 84-Proceedings for attachment of properties under Section 8 of the Act-Appellants claiming rights and interest in such property preferred claims-Designated Court rejected their claims-Appeal-Maintainability -Impugned order was interlocutory and subject to decision of Civil Court in terms of Section 84 Cr.P.C., it could not be held to be a final order-Appeal was not maintainable.
       Held : A combined reading of Sections 8 and 19 of the Act and Section 84 (4) of the Code makes it abundantly clear that the person not being a proclaimed offender against whom an order is passed under Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Code has the remedy of filing a suit which reflects the intention of the Legislature to treat the order of the Designated Court, in so far as it affects the third party claimant, to be an interlocutory order. Such an order would, however, be deemed to be a final order so far as the prosecution, the state and the proclaimed offender are concerned particularly in view of the provisions of Section 86 of the Code. Interlocutory order in law means, not that which decides the cause but which only settles intervening matter relating to the cause. Such an order is made pending the cause and before the final hearing on the merits. It is made to secure some end and purpose necessary and essential to the progress of the case and generally collateral to the issues to be settled by the court in the final judgment. Orders sommoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports, attaching the properties (with the exception of Section 86) and such other steps in the aid of pending proceedings shall amount to be interlocutory orders against which no appeal can be preferred with the aid of Section 19 of the Act. As the order attaching the property in so far as relates to the claimant third party, is subject to the decision of the civil court, it cannot be held to be a final order. (Para 5)
       (ii) Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 19-Interlocutory order-Expression to be understood to be not deciding rights of claimants finally-Practice of writing lengthy orders for deciding interlocutory matters deprecated.
       Held : Brevity of orders on application of mind and not the length of the order is the criterion for adjudicating the rights of the parties which are otherwise subject to the decision of a civil court. It would be appreciated that the Designated Courts which are otherwise over-burdened shall refrain themselves from writing such unnecessary lengthy judgments and pass appropriate brief orders, surely dealing with all points, while adjudicating the claims of all the parties. At any rate we do not appreciate such lengthy orders for deciding interlocutory matters. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Appearing for the respondent Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals in terms of Section 18 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in this Court on the ground that as the order impugned is not a judgment, sentence or final order passed by the Designated Court, the remedy of appeal is not available to the appellants. In support of his contention he has referred to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act read with Sections 82 to 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").

2. In proceedings for attachment of properties under Section 8 of the Act, the appellants herein along with some other persons preferred claims, claiming rights and interests in the properties sought to be attached on the prayer of the prosecution. In a lengthy and detailed judgment, spread over 559 pages, the Designated Court rejected their claims and passed orders against them in terms of Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Code.

3. It is conceded before us that the impugned order is neither a judgment nor a sentence. The controversy is with respect to the nature of the order impugned as the respondent-State submits that the said order passed under Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Code is an interlocutory order whereas the appellants submit that the order is a final order so far as parties in the appeals are concerned.

Section 8 of the Act provides :

"Forfeiture of property of certain persons.-(1) Where a person has been convicted of any offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder, the Designated Court may, it addition to awarding any punishment, by order in writing, declare that any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the accused and specified in the order, shall stand forfeited to the Government free from all encumbrances.

(2) Where any person is accused of any offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder, it shall be open to the Designated Court trying him to pass an order that all or any properties, movable or immovable or both belonging to him, shall, during the period of such trial, be attached, and where such trial ends in conviction, the properties so attached shall stand forfeited to the Government free from all encumbrances.

(3) (a) If upon a report in writing made by a police officer or an officer referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7, any Designated Court has reason to believe that any person, who has committed an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder, has absconded or is concealing himself so that he may not be apprehended, such court may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 82 of the Code, publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than fifteen days but not more than thirty days from the date of publication of such proclamation.

(b) The Designated Court issuing a proclamation under clause (a) may, at any time, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the proclaimed person, and thereupon the provisions of Sections 83 to 85 of the Code shall apply to such attachment as if such attachment were made under that Code.

(c) If, within six months from the date of the attachment, any person, whose property is, or has been, at the disposal of the Government under sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Code, appears voluntarily or is apprehended and brought under the Designated Court by whose order the property was attached, or the Court to which such Court is subordinate, and proves to the satisfaction of such court that he did not abscond or conceal himself for the purpose of avoiding apprehension and that he had not received such notice of the proclamation as to enable him to attend within the time specified therein, such property or, if the same ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 80

IMPORTANT POINTOrder passed by Designated Court under Section 84 Cr.P.C. insofar as it relates to the third party rights of claimant is only an interlocutory order and not final order and against it an appeal under Section 19 of TADA Act is not maintainable.

IMPORTANT POINT
Order passed by Designated Court under Section 84 Cr.P.C. insofar as it relates to the third party rights of claimant is only an interlocutory order and not final order and against it an appeal under Section 19 of TADA Act is not maintainable.