ORDER
R.R. Prasad, J.
1. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 2.6.2000 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Special Judge in Misc. Case No. 156 of 1996 whereby ad-interim order relating to attachment of the property in question was made absolute in terms of Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. Further order dated 15.10.2004 (An-nexure-4) has also been sought to be quashed whereby prayer made by the petitioner to recall the order attaching the property was refused and consequently receiver was appointed.
2. The fact giving rise this application is that CBI filed an application on 29.8.1996 under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance stating therein that one Dr. Gouri Shankar Prasad while was serving as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa and also in other capacities, was found indulging himself in fraudulent withdrawal of huge amount from the Government Exchequer in conspiracy with others and hence, several cases were lodged, such as R.C. No. 19(A) of 1996 PAT. R.C. No. 48(A) of 1996 PAT. R.C. No. 53(A) of 1996 PAT and R.C. No. 66 of 1996 PAT.
3. It has been further stated that in course of investigation of these cases it transpired that he has floated several firms engaged in manufacturing medicines in the name of his wife, sons and other close relatives. Other properties including the properties in question were also found to have been acquired by ill-gotten money by committing scheduled offence by the said Dr. Gouri Shankar Prasad in the name of his sons, who at the time of acquisition of the properties were either minors or were pursuing their studies and as such, they had no independent source of income to have properties in their name.
4. On filing of such application under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance along with copy of First Information Report of R.C. No. 19(A) of 1996 PAT for attachment of those properties, a Miscellaneous (Civil) No. 156 of 1996 was registered. In the said case, Dr. Gouri Shankar Prasad and his six relatives including the petitioners, who happen to be the sons of Dr. Gouri Shankar Prasad were made opposite parties. The details of the properties sought to be attached were given in the Annexure-2 of the said petition.
5. The Court having found prima facie case being made out passed an ad-interim order on 30.8.1996 attaching those properties. Thereafter notices were issued, upon which opposite parties 2 and 7 appeared but rest of the opposite parties did not appear and therefore, steps for substituted service of notice through publication in daily newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' was taken but in spite of that, other opposite parties including the petitioners did not appear even after passing of four years. Thereafter, the Court treating the service valid, passed the order on 2.6.2000 whereby ad-interim order passed by the Court was made absolute against these petitioners and other opposite parties. Much there after, these petitioners filed an application on 11.5.2004 stating therein that they had no knowledge of the order under which property has been attached and they could know about the case only on 21.4.2004 and hence, prayer was made to set aside the order under which ad-interim order was made absolute and they be allowed to file their show causes so that they may be heard in the matter but the learned Court, vide order dated 15.10.2004 rejected the prayer and being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one of the properties situated at Cheseyar 'Cheseyar Lane' Bariatu, Ranchi and the notice also seems to have been issued on the said address but the petitioners were not living at that place, rather petitioners were ordinarily residing at Nasik which CBI was knowing fully well and therefore, CBI in connection with other case got the summon issued to the petitioners on the address of Nasik, still no step was taken for service of notice on the address of the petitioners which is at Nasik and even publication of notice was not made in the newspaper which was in circulation within the area of Nasik and, therefore, notice would never be deemed to have been validly served upon the petitioners and as such, the aforesaid orders passed by the Court below are fit to be set aside.
7. Learned Counsel further submits that in terms of provision as contained in Section 3(3) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, ' an application filed under Section 3 needs to be accompanied with an affidavit/affidavits stating the ground on which the person, who has filed an application, has reason to believe that the said person has committed scheduled offence but no such affidavit has been filed and as such, ad-interim order under which property was attached and even the order dated 2.6.2000 by which ad-interim order was made absolute are fit to be set aside.
8. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the CBI wherein it has been stated that when the case, bearing R.C. No. 19(A) of 1996 was instituted for fraudulent withdrawal of huge amount from the Government Exchequer, the matter was taken up for investigation and in course of investigation, it transpires that one Dr. Gouri Shankar Prasad has amassed properties either in his name or in the name of these petitioners or in other name by ill gotten money by committing scheduled offence an application under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance for attaching the property was filed.
9. It was further submitted that during investigation, it was found that the petitioner, who are the sons of Gouri Shankar Prasad, were students and were normally residing with his father at Bariatu and as such step was taken for service of notice on the said address but purposely it was not received and the matter remained pending almost for four years and ultimately, the order was passed making ad-interim attachment absolute after steps for substituted service of notice through publication was taken.
10. It was further stated that other two persons, i.e., opposite parties 2 and 7 who had appeared in the proceeding and these petitioners and other persons, were also accused in the criminal case where they were being represented by one Lawyer and the said Lawyer had every knowledge of this proceeding and taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the Court having been satisfied that there is valid service of notice, has passed the impugned orders and as such, the impugned orders need not to be interfered with by this Court particularly when almost 12 years have passed from the date when the property was attached.
11. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the lower Court records which were called for, I do find that an application was filed under Section 3 stating therein that allegation made in the case, bearing R.C. No. 19(A) of 1996 PAT shows that Dr. Gouri Shankar Prasad in conspiracy with others have defrauded the Government Exchequer of Rs. 15 crore and odd during the period from 1.12.1995 to 27.1.1996 on the basis of fake allotment and supply orders and that said Gouri Shankar Prasad was also made accused in other three cases whereby he has been alleged to have defrauded the Government to the extent of Rs. 65 crore and odd and thereby acquired huge movable and immovable properties in his name as well as in the name of his wife and children/including the petitioners at different places, description of which was given in Annexure 2 of the said petition. Thus, it was stated that the properties worth more than Rs. 80 crore were acquired by committing scheduled offence needs to be attached in terms of Section 3 of said Ordinance. The said application filed under Section 3 was affidavited by one T.J. Gohse, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI wherein he has stated that statement made in the application filed under Section 3 with respect to properties being acquired by ill-gotten money are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
12. In that view of the matter condition as stipulated under Section 313) of the said Ordinance seems to have been full complied with before the Court passed the order regarding ad-interim attachment. Further, in view of the statement made on behalf of the CBI in the counter affidavit that the petitioners at the relevant time were the students and had been residing normally with his father at Bariatu, substituted service of notice through publication was rightly considered by the Court bellow to have been effected validly upon the petitioners and in that view of the matter order making ad-interim attachment absolute in terms of Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance seems to be quite justified.
13. Consequently, I do not find any illegality with the order appointing receiver. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application.
14. Hence, this application is dismissed.