news details |
|
|
| Kiran Wattal’s wife seeks setting aside attachment order | | Anticorruption Court dismisses appeal | |
JAMMU, JULY 11-Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu Mr.Kartar Singh today dismissed the appeal filed by Veena Wattal w/o Kiran Wattal, the then Superintending Engineer JMC, against the order of July 25, 2006 passed by Designated Authority (Commissioner/Secretary GAD) confirming the order of attachment passed by the SSP Vigilance Organization dated July 18, 2006 during the investigation of case under FIR No 19/2005 under prevention of corruption Act.
The petitioner in her appeal has submitted that the property under attachment as also the land on which it has been build is owned by the appellant, she acquired the said land in the year 1986 from her sister-in-law Sushma Wattal. The appellant was approached by the J&K Bank in the year 2001 for providing space to the bank on the said land. The appellant obtained permission for raising the construction from the competent authority. She is an income tax payee since 1985 and as such she has independent source of income. The building under attachment was constructed in the year 2001-2005. During this period the appellant invested Rs 71, 26, 803 including electrical gadgets. The construction has been made by obtaining loan from the J&K Bank and as such seeks that the order of the Designated Authority dated July 25,2006 be set aside.
Special Judge Anticorruption, after hearing Sr. Adv ZA Shah appearing for the appellant and Mr. Onkar Singh Chief Prosecuting Officer appearing for the VOJ, observed that the appeal filed by appellant has no merit and is dismissed with observations that the argument of Sr. Adv ZA Shah appearing for the appellant that income from the attached property has not been considered either by the IO or by the Designated Authority, also does not deserve consideration because the check period for assessment of disproportionate assets has been fixed October 1980, the date on which the husband of the appellant joined the state Government service up to ending Marc 2003, the period when construction of the building was completed. Since up to the time of completion of construction of the building (situated at Janipur), no commercial activities were going on in the said building, therefore, inclusion of income subsequently generated by the appellant on account of rent from the bank and other sources like restaurant does not arise at all. It is also found from the record that during the course of search of residential house of appellant, a document in the shape of evaluation report of said building made by the private revelator namely CP Gupta, civil engineer at the instance of her husband was recovered and seized. The said document dated January 31, 2003 reveals that in the month of January, 2003 the construction of the building in question was complete baring some floor work. The building was assessed at Rs. 79, 23, 850. This document goes to prove that building was complete by the end of March, 2003 which is further fortified by the lease deed dated January 6, 2003 executed by the appellant in favour of the bank and it reveals that building was complete in the month of January 2003 and given to bank on rent from January 1,2003 itself. So the income generated to the appellant after the check period, as rightly considered by the investigating officer.
On the question of appointment of Administrator, the Anti Corruption Judge further observed that an officer of the Government is to be appointed as its Administrator as provided under sub-section 3 (2) of section 8. An application dated April 18, 2007 has already been moved by the prosecution seeking appointment of Administrator, the Court considered both the options available and feel that nomination of administrator for running the attached property may cause and lead to practical difficulties more that the consequences that would follow forfeiture mainly because of lot of infrastructure and expertise is required to manage the attached property. In case of forfeiture, the interest of a person against whom the attachment has been ordered, will be protected if the accused in the end is acquitted or the attachment is later on revoked. In view of such circumstances, Court feels that both the options should be considered together. However, forfeiture can be ordered only after the show cause notice under the Act, therefore, proceedings for forfeiture of the attached property shall be separately drawn and the notice shall be issued to the appellant. Decision of the application for the appointment of administration is therefore deferred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
