news details |
|
|
| Property attached of Girdawar by VO | | Court partly allowed appeals, deferred forfeiture of crusher | |
Jammu, September, 06:- Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Mr. JR Kotwal today in two appeals filed by Parshotam Singh Girdawar and his wife Usha Rani against the order of attachment dated June 21, 2006 by which the authority attached international stone crusher and prime land measuring 10 Kanal and Chopra Shop Rehmbal Udhampur has confirmed the attachment of crusher and defer the forfeiture of crusher, appeals regarding release of crusher are dismissed. However Court partly allowed appeals to extent of land. The attachment of the land is revoked and land is released, though the prohibition against its sale or otherwise dealing with it shall continue.
Mr. JR Kotwal after hearing Advocates BK Bhasin and SC Bali appearing for the appellants and Sr. Prosecuting Officer Mr. Parshotam Kumar appearing for the Vigilance Organization, observed that Court being satisfied with and having confirmed the order of attachment of crusher, may either order its forfeiture under the sub-section 2 of section 8-C of the Act or may nominate an officer of the Govt as administrator. The Vigilance Organization even before the appeals were filed, has moved an application on July 1, 2006 seeking appointment of administrator, Court after anxious ponder over the two options available to this Court, feel that nomination of administrator for running the crusher may cause and lead to practical difficulties more than the consequences that would follow the forfeitures. This is mainly because a lot of infrastructure and expertise is required for running a crusher. In the case of forfeiture the interest of the persons against whom the attachment has been ordered is well protected if the accused in the end is acquitted or the attachment is revoked in appeal.
Court further observed that being of such a view the Court feel both the option should be considered together, however, forfeiture can be ordered only after a show cause notice u/s 8-B of the Act. Therefore, proceedings for forfeiture of crusher shall be separately drawn and notice issued to both the applicants. Decision in this application for appointment of administration is therefore deferred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
