The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following mandatory procedures and giving notice to interested parties before attachment, as well as the distinction between companies and their shareholders.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed, challenging the order dated 17.07.2000 made in Cr.MP.No.419/1998 in Special CC.No.7/1997, by the learned Special Judge I/XI Additional Judge, Chennai-1, attaching certain properties of the Appellants in pursuance of GO.Ms.No.574 Public (SC) Department dated 03.04.1998.

2. The properties, set out in Annexure-I, Items 1 to 34, which includes gold and silver wares, vehicles, balance in various Bank Accounts and fixed deposits and Items 1 to 43 in Annexure II, which includes Factory Machines, Vehicles, Bank Balance and Fixed Deposits, were subjected to attachment. In the said GO.MS.No.574 dated 3.4.1998, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption has furnished a list of properties allegedly acquired by the 1st Appellant/A1 and held jointly by her with her associate Tmt.Sasikala Natarajan, in Annexure I. These are stated to be cumulatively worth about Rs.8,65,30,373.74/-. A list of properties, allegedly acquired by the 1st Appellant in her name and in the names of her alleged benamies viz. (1) Tmt.Sasikala Natarajan, (2) V.N.Sudhakaran, (3) Tmt.Elavarasi and (4) Selvan J.Vivek and held by them on her behalf stated to be worth of Rs.3,31,65,757/-is furnished in Annexure-II.

3. The fourth Appellant Master J.Vivek though was a minor at the time of passing of the order of attachment has become major and a memo is filed to that effect and is recorded.

4. In the said GO.Ms.No.574 dated 3.4.1998, it has been stated that the benamies, in whose names the properties had been purchased, had no known sources of income to purchase the above said properties by themselves and the said properties had been purchased by the first Appellant with the monies obtained by the commission of offence which is a scheduled offence, that is to say an offence mentioned in the Schedule to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 ( herein after referred to as the Ordinance 38 of 1944). The State Government authorized the Investigating Officer of this case to make an application for the attachment of the properties specified in the Annexures I and II of the said GO.Ms.No.574 dated 03.04.1998. Based on the same, under Section 3 of the Ordinance 38 of 1944 read with Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a petition has been filed by the Prosecution in Cr.MP.No.419/1998 in Special CC.No.7/1997, seeking attachment of the properties. An exparte order of interim attachment dated 04.06.1998 in Cr.MP.No.420/1998 in Cr.MP.No.419/1998 was passed by the learned Special Judge/XI Additional Sessions Judge, as against which, the Appellants 1 and 2 filed Crl.OP.No.8625/1998 before this court challenging the said interim order of attachment. It was contended by the Appellants that no opportunity was given to the parties aggrieved and the interim order of attachment has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. During the course of arguments of the said Criminal Original Petition, attention of this court was drawn to the various provisions of the Ordinance 38 of 1944 which contemplates notice to be issued to the aggrieved party to show cause against the interim order of attachment and if any cause is shown or objections raised, the learned Special Judge is under a legal obligation to investigate the same and pass a final order as provided for under Section 5 of the Ordinance 38 of 1944. This court, after recording the undertaking given by the Respondent Police that the interim order of attachment will not be put into execution till such time the learned Special Judge decides the claim either way on a cause to be shown by the Appellants, dismissed the petition.

5. Thereafter, the Appellants, who were arrayed as the Respondents in the petition for attachment, had filed their respective counters before the Special Court. In the counter filed by the 1st Appellant, she has stated that the 1st Appellant owned only one vehicle, which is shown as item (4) in the Annexure-I and there could never be