Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SAVITRI RATHO
Simadri Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vigilance) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to confiscation order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of assets and their valuation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. appellants' arguments on financial hardship (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. objections to asset valuation and legal provisions (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. respondent's stance and justification for confiscation (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. judicial precedents on confiscation (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. statutory provisions guiding confiscation (Para 24) |
| 8. court's analysis of financial implications and requirements (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. conclusion on stay of confiscation order (Para 32 , 33) |
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 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 cont....
The court emphasized that the operation of the confiscation order can be stayed if the accused provide bank guarantees for the assessed value of properties, balancing statutory intent with personal c....
Confiscation of assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act is contingent upon the outcome of the underlying criminal trial, allowing for temporary deposits to prevent confiscation.
Confiscation of property is contingent on a conviction; upon the death of the accused, any confiscation order becomes invalid, allowing for the return of properties to legal heirs.
The court clarified that the provisions relating to security and attachment in cases of disproportionate assets must be strictly followed; hence, the petitions were dismissed.
The court upheld that seizure actions by police must comply with Articles 14 and 19, reaffirming the necessity for following established legal guidelines when handling seized property.
The court ruled that an adjudicating authority must diligently exercise discretion regarding confiscation of unauthorized funds as per statutory provisions and not based on hardship alone.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
