IMPORTANT POINT
The Prevention of Corruption Act being a complete code and a Special Act excludes the application of Section 102 Cr.P.C in the matter of attachment or seizure of property relating to offences committed under the P.C. Act, and the seizure of properties without following the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 is not sustainable.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned senior panel counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K. Pradip, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Th. Tolpishak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 3.

The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C with a prayer for setting aside the impugned common Zima order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, (P.C. Act), Imphal West, Manipur in Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 7 of 2020, Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 1 of 2021 and Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 5 of 2021.

2. The facts of the present case in a nutshell are that on receiving reliable information, the petitioner (CBI) registered a case bearing No. R.C. 0212020A0003 or R.C. 3(A) 2020CBI/ACB/Imphal u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the P.C.Act, 1988 (as amended) against one accused person, viz, KonjengbamIbothem Singh for possessing assets both moveable and non-moveable disproportionate to his known source of income. Thereafter, on 23.10.2020, the petitioner (CBI) conducted a search operation at the house of the said accused person and seized a large number of documents and articles by preparing a search-cum-seizure memo and kept the seized properties in their custody.

3. The three respondents in the present revision petition filed three separate application registered as Cril.Misc.(Z) Case No. 7 of 2020, Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 1 of 2021 and Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 5 of 2021 in the Court of the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Imphal West, with a prayer for granting to them interim custody of some of the seized properties which belongs to them on Zima. The said three Zima applications were allowed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Imphal West by directing the CBI to release in favour of the present respondents some of the seized properties which belongs to them under certain conditions as mentioned in the said order.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revision petition assailing the said Zima order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C Act), Imphal West, with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order.

4. At the outset, Mr. K. Pradip and Mr. Th. Tolpishak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that the CBI seized or confiscated the documents and articles including money and gold ornaments from the accused person illegally without following due process of law provided under Section 18 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act for short) read with Section 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Cril. Ordinance for short) and as such, the CBI has no locus standi to object to the Zima application filed by the respondents or to file the present revision petition challenging the impugned Zima order passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Imphal East. The counsel for the respondents draw the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 18 A of the P.C. Act and Section 3, 4 and Para 4-A of the Schedule to the Cril. Ordinance which reads as under:

Section 18 A of the P.C. Act 1988:

'18A. Provision of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to apply to attachment under this Act.-(1) Save as otherwise provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord. 38 of 1944) shall, as far as many be, apply to the attachment, administration of attached property and execution of order of attachment or confiscation of money or property procured by means of an offence under this Act.

(2) For the purpose of this Act, the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord. 38 of 1944) shall have effect, subject to the modification that the references to 'District Judge' shall be construed as references to 'Special Judge.'

Section 3 and 4 of