The court clarified that interim confiscation requires deposit of assessed market value to prevent forfeiture, reinforcing statutory intent against corruption. This ensures accused do not retain control over proceeds of crime during pending appeals.

judgment :

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 (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