##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

immovable property of the appellant (opposite party no. 2 before the learned Authorized Officer) and of her late husband (opposite party no.1 before the learned Authorized Officer) have been ordered to be confiscated.

3. On the basis of private complaint, a preliminary inquiry was initiated against the appellant’s husband (O.P. No.1), who was then working as Superintending Engineer with the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar.

4. Subsequent to the retirement from service of O.P. No.

1, an FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12/1995 was registered on 18.04.1995 against the O.P. No. 1 for acquisition of disproportionate assets of Rs. 13,14,742/- with respect to the check period from February, 1963 to May 1989.

5. After investigation, a charge-sheet No. 14 of 2004 was filed on 10.09.2004, wherein apart from the O.P. No. 1, the appellant was also arrayed as an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B & 109 of the I.P.C. and section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the appellant is that syhe had deliberately abetted her husband in the acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Date of events

18.04.1995 Vigilance Case No. 12/1995 registered against deceased accused.

10.09.2004 Chargesheet submitted against deceased accused and appellant.

20.11.2009 Quashing of appellant allowed.

17.04.2012 Confiscation proceedings initiated.

31.03.2016 Death of sole accused.

10.06.2016 Prevention of Corruption Act main trial abated.

30.09.2016 Confiscation order passed.

Argument on behalf of the appellant (1) On Merit:

6. It is submitted by Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the very initiation of confiscation proceeding against the appellant was illegal being in breach of the mandate of section 13(2)(a) of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 read with Rule 14(1)(c) of the Bihar Special Courts Rule, 2010. In this context, it is pointed out by Mrs. Sinha that the said rule mandates the particulars to be contained in an application for confiscation moved by the State before the Authorized Officer as “the particulars of the known source of income of delinquent public servant”. It is submitted that deceased public servant (late D.N. Rai) had much prior to the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, had vide his response dated 23.06.1989 had intimated the respondent that his main source of income was agricultural income from ancestral and inherited agricultural land of around 45 Bighas. While his wife, Mrs. Lalita Devi (appellant) had inherited irrigated agricultural land of around 8 Acres and 29.05 decimals. He had also indicated the income received by him and his wife from agriculture. This was their main and primary source of income. He had also separately indicated the income received from salary. Thus, at the time of initiation of confiscation proceedings against the late public servant on or around 17.04.2012, the respondent was duly aware of his primary source of income, i.e. inherited irrigated agricultural land. It is pointed out that respondent had also separately and confidentially crosschecked the extent of inherited land holdings of the deceased public servant (husband of the appellant) and against the appellant by the local revenue authorities, who had certified the aforementioned land holdings of the husband of the appellant and the appellant also.

7. It is submitted that the respondent has only disputed the income which the husband of appellant late Mr. D.N. Roy had received from the ancestral agricultural property, which was never denied by the respondent. It is pointed out that statutory mandates refers to sources of income and not the actual income, however, in order to make out a p