The time limit of 45 days for filing a reply in confiscation proceedings under the M.P. Special Courts Act, 2011 is mandatory and not subject to extension under the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, J.

1. This order disposes the appeal filed under section 17 of the M.P. Special Courts Act, 2011 (hereinafter for brevity will be referred as “the Act of 2011”) against the order dated 5-10-2018 passed by the Authorised Officer of M.P. Special Court Act, Indore in Special Sessions Case No. 3/2016 wherein the appellants have been denied the opportunity to file their reply in respect of confiscation proceedings being carried out by the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that criminal case against the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 bearing Crime No. 8/2012 was registered in respect of the offences punishable under section 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act along with sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After filing of charge-sheet in the year 2013, on 22-8-2016, the respondent has further preferred an application under section 13(1) of the Act of 2011 for confiscating the property of the appellants, which was the subject matter of the crime. This case was registered as Special Sessions Case No. 3/2016.

4. As per the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants preferred an application for providing legible copes of the documents filed by the respondent so that proper reply may be given. However, the respondent preferred an application under Rule 10(1), (2), (3) of the M.P. Special Court Rules, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity will be referred as “the Rules of 2012”) praying that opportunity to file reply may be denied to the appellants. This application of the respondent was allowed by the Special Judge vide impugned order dated 5-10-2018 and denied the opportunity of filing the written reply. It is this order, which has been challenged by the appellants.

5. The main grounds of this appeal were that it was wrong on the part of the Authorised Officer to conclude that the provided time of 45 days under the Rules of 2012 in all is mandatory in nature and that the Authorised Officer himself had granted time to file reply and therefore, could not review his own order and deny the rightful opportunity to such reply which ought to have been afforded in view of the fact that legible copies of the documents had not been filed by the respondent, the appellants were not in a position to file the reply. It is further submitted that as per Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2012, nothing more than presumption can be invoked against the appellants on failure to file reply within time and this presumption is rebuttable in nature, which has been duly rebutted.

6. In this appeal, it has been prayed by the appellants that the impugned order dated 5-10-2018 be set aside and the appellants may be permitted to file reply before the Authorised Officer so that substantive justice can be afforded in the matter.

7. Both the learned counsel for the parties were heard.

8. The main plank of the submissions lead by the learned counsel for the appellants has been two fold i.e. the order of the Authorised Officer denying the opportunity to file reply amounts to review of its earlier orders in which the appellants were being given time successively to file reply. The Authorised Officer was incompetent to pass such review order. Secondly, that the time stipulated under Rule 10(2) of 45 days in all is directory in nature and the Authorised Officer ought to have extended time in view of the fact that legible copies of the documents were not provided to the appellants.

9. It would be appropriate to narrate the chronology of sequence of events in the matter which are un-controverted. After filing the application by the respondent under section 13(1) of the Act, 2011, notice was issued against the appellants. Notice was served on 29-7-2016. The appellants appeared on 26-8-2016. However, the reply was not submitted by the appellants and the appellants submitted that they were continuously provided time to file reply. However, two years later, the respondent filed an application on 31-7-2018 seeking an order that th