Point of Law : Application shall be accompanied by one or more affidavits stating the grounds on which the belief that the said person has committed any schedule offence is founded, and the amount of money or value of other property believed to have been procured by means of the offence.

ORDER :

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), challenging Annexure-14 order passed by the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in the case C.C.No.2/2014 pending in that court.

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

3. One Rajendra Prasad @ Anwar Ali is the accused in the case C.C.No.2/2014 pending in the Special Court. He had served as Regional Transport Officer in the Motor Vehicles Department. The allegation against him in the above case is that, during the period from 01.01.1993 to 24.03.2006, he acquired and possessed assets worth Rs.2,52,71,605.97/-which was disproportionate and 96.96% in excess of his known sources of income and that he committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')

4. The F.I.R in the above case was registered against the accused by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on 23.03.2006.

5. As per Annexure-1 document dated 27.04.2006, the petitioner purchased 15 cents of land, with a residential building therein (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'), from the wife of the accused in the above case, for a consideration of Rs.1,28,00,000/-.

6. The State Government issued Annexure-3 order dated 05.02.2010, authorising the investigating officer in the above case to file a report and affidavit before the District Judge, Ernakulam under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') for attachment of the schedule property.

7. The investigating officer filed Annexure-4 application under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance in the District Court, Ernakulam on 25.08.2010 for attachment of the schedule property. As per the order of the District Court, the aforesaid property was attached. The period of attachment of the schedule property was subsequently extended till the date 31.12.2013.

8. The investigating officer filed Annexure-5 application before the District Court, Ernakulam for extension of the period of attachment of the schedule property from 31.12.2013.

9. As per Annexure-6 order dated 15.10.2014, the District Court, Ernakulam dismissed Annexure-5 application for the reason that final report against the accused in the case had already been filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur on 02.11.2013 and it was the Special Court which was competent to deal with the matter.

10. On 04.02.2015, the petitioner filed Annexure-7 application in the District Court, Ernakulam praying that lifting of the attachment over the schedule property may be intimated to the office of the Sub Registrar concerned since there was no attachment in force.

11. As per Annexure-8 order dated 28.02.2015, the District Court, Ernakulam found that there was no order of attachment in force in respect of the schedule property and therefore, allowed Annexure-7 application. The District Court directed that lifting of the attachment over the schedule property shall be intimated to the office of the Sub Registrar concerned.

12. On 23.02.2015, the investigating officer filed Annexure-9 application under Section 3(1) of the Ordinance in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur for attachment of five items of properties including the schedule property.

13. As per Annexure-10 order dated 16.12.2015, the Special Court allowed Annexure-9 application and ordered attachment of all the five items of properties including the schedule property.

14. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C No. 2776/2018 before this Court challenging Annexure-10 order passed by the Special Court.

15. As per Annexure-11 order dated 11.06.2018 in Crl.M.C No. 2776/2018, this Court set aside Annexure-10 order as far as it related to the schedule property and directed the Special Court to pass fresh order in Annexure-9 application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petiti