http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 757  of  2000 Appeal (crl.)   760      of  2000 Appeal (crl.)   763      of  2000

PETITIONER: AMINA AHMED DOSSA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/01/2001

BENCH: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     SETHI,J.

     Appearing   for  the   respondent  Mr.Mukul   Rohtagi, Additional  Solicitor  General  has   raised  a  preliminary objection  regarding  the maintainability of the appeals  in terms  of  Section  18  of  the  Terrorists  and  Disruptive Activities  (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred  to as  "the Act") in this Court on the ground that as the order impugned  is not a judgment, sentence or final order  passed by  the  Designated  Court,  the remedy  of  appeal  is  not available  to the appellants.  In support of his  contention he  has  referred to the provisions of Section 8 of the  Act read  with  Sections  82  to  84 of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  (hereinafter  referred  to as  "the  Code").   In proceedings  for attachment of properties under Section 8 of the Act, the appellants herein along with some other persons preferred  claims,  claiming  rights and  interests  in  the properties  sought  to  be  attached on the  prayer  of  the prosecution.   In  a lengthy and detailed  judgment,  spread over  559 pages, the Designated Court rejected their  claims and  passed orders against them in terms of Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Code.  It is conceded before us  that  the  impugned order is neither a  judgment  nor  a sentence.   The controversy is with respect to the nature of the  order impugned as the respondent-State submits that the said  order  passed  under Section 8 of the  Act  read  with Section 84 of the Code is an interlocutory order whereas the appellants  submit that the order is a final order so far as parties  in the appeals are concerned.  Section 8 of the Act provides:   "Forfeiture of property of certain persons - (1) Where  a person has been convicted of any offence punishable under  this Act or any rule made thereunder, the  Designated Court  may, in addition to awarding any punishment, by order in  writing, declare that any property, movable or immovable or  both,  belonging  to the accused and  specified  in  the order, shall stand forfeited to the Government free from all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

encumbrances.

     (2)  Where any person is accused of any offence  under this  Act  or any rule made thereunder, it shall be open  to the Designated Court trying him to pass an order that all or any  properties,  movable or immovable or both belonging  to him,  shall,  during the period of such trial, be  attached, and  where such trial ends in conviction, the properties  so attached  shall stand forfeited to the Government free  from all encumbrances.

     (3)(a)  If  upon a report in writing made by a  police officer  or  an officer referred to in sub- section  (1)  of Section  7, any Designated Court has reason to believe  that any  person,  who has committed an offence punishable  under this  Act  or any rule made thereunder, has absconded or  is concealing  himself so that he may not be apprehended,  such court  may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 82 of the Code, publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than  fifteen  days but not more than thirty days  from  the date of publication of such proclamation.

     (b)  The Designated Court issuing a proclamation under clause  (a)  may, at any time, order the attachment  of  any property,  movable  or immovable or both, belonging  to  the proclaimed  person, and thereupon the provisions of sections 83  to  85 of the Code shall apply to such attachment as  if such attachment were made under that Code.

     (c)  If,  within  six  months from  the  date  of  the attachment,  any person, whose property is, or has been,  at the  disposal  of the Government under sub- section  (2)  of Section   85  of  the  Code,   appears  voluntarily  or   is apprehended  and brought under the Designated Court by whose order  the property was attached, or the Court to which such Court is subordinate, and proves to the satisfaction of such court  that  he did not abscond or conceal himself  for  the purpose  of  avoiding  apprehension  and  that  he  had  not received such notice of the proclamation as to enable him to attend  within the time specified therein, such property or, if  the same has been sold, the net proceeds of the sale and the  residue  of  the   property,  shall,  after  satisfying therefrom   all  costs  incurred  in  consequence   of   the attachment, be delivered to him.

     (4)  Where any shares in a company stand forfeited  to the  Government under this Section, then, the company  shall notwithstanding  anything  contained in the  Companies  Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the articles of association the company, forthwith  register the Government as the transferee of such shares."

     Section 82 of the Code authorises the Court to declare a  person  absconding  on  existence  of  the  circumstances specified  therein.  The Court issuing a proclamation  under Section  82  may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,  at any  time  after  the  issue   of  proclamation,  order  the attachment  of  any property, movable or immovable or  both, belonging to the proclaimed person in exercise of Section 83 of  the  Code.  Any person feeling that he has a claim  with respect  to the properties attached under Section 83 of  the Code can prefer claims and objections in terms of Section 84 of  the  Code within the time specified and if the claim  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

objection  is disallowed in whole or in part, such aggrieved person  may,  within a period of one year from the  date  of such  order, institute a suit to establish the rights  which he claims in respect of the property in dispute.  Subject to the  result  of  such  suit,  if any,  the  order  shall  be conclusive.   Right of appeal under Section 19 is  conferred against  such orders which are not interlocutory orders.   A combined reading of Sections 8 and 19 of the Act and Section 84(4)  of the Code makes it abundantly clear that the person not  being  a proclaimed offender against whom an  order  is passed  under  Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84  of the  Code has the remedy of filing a suit which reflects the intention  of  the  Legislature to treat the  order  of  the Designated  Court,  in so far as it affects the third  party claimant,  to  be  an interlocutory order.   Such  an  order would,  however, be deemed to be a final order so far as the prosecution,  the  state  and the  proclaimed  offender  are concerned  particularly in view of the provisions of Section 86  of the Code.  Interlocutory order in law means, not that which  decides the cause but which only settles  intervening matter relating to the cause.  Such an order is made pending the cause and before the final hearing on the merits.  It is made  to secure some end and purpose necessary and essential to  the progress of the case and generally collateral to the issues  to  be settled by the court in the  final  judgment. Orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for  bail,  calling  for reports, attaching  the  properties (with  the exception of Section 86) and such other steps  in the   aid  of  pending  proceedings   shall  amount  to   be interlocutory   orders  against  which  no  appeal  can   be preferred  with  the aid of Section 19 of the Act.   As  the order  attaching  the property in so far as relates  to  the claimant  third  party,  is subject to the decision  of  the civil  court,  it cannot be held to be a final  order.   The order  impugned  herein  has  not, in  any  manner,  finally adjudicated  the rights of the appellants entitling them  to file the appeal on the ground of their claim of the impugned order  being final.  Having regard to the scheme of the Act, read  with  relevant provisions of the Code, the  expression "interlocutory  order"  appearing in Section 19 of  the  Act would have to be understood to be not deciding the rights of the  claimants  finally and thus are  interlocutory  orders. Giving  any  other interpretation would defeat the  dominant purpose  of  the Act and result in not only multiplicity  of litigation  but  ultimately  conflicting verdicts.   If  the impugned  order is held to be not an interlocutory order and subject  to  appeal, the consequence would be  that  despite dismissal  of  the  appeal  by  this  Court,  the  aggrieved claimant would be entitled to resort to the remedy of filing the  suit with the aid and under the cover of the mandate of Sub-section  (4) of Section 84 of the Code.  In that event a fresh  litigation  would  commence, not  only  unnecessarily burdening  the  parties and wasting the public time  of  the courts  but  also  creating embarrassing positions  for  the civil  courts to adjudicate afresh the claims of the parties as finally determined by this Court in proceedings under the Act.   Such  could not be the intention of the  Legislature. Upon  a harmonious interpretation of the various  provisions of  the  Act  and  the Code, there is  no  escape  from  the position that the order passed by the Designated Court under Section  84 of the Code in so far as it relates to the third party  rights of the claimant is only an interlocutory order and  not  final  orders for which an appeal could  be  filed under Section 19 of the Act.  But if such aggrieved claimant does  not  choose to challenge the order by way of  a  suit,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

such  order  would  become  final so far  as  the  State  is concerned.   It may be noted in this context that a suit can be  filed only at the instance of the person whose claims or objections  are  disallowed.   Hence,  when  the  claims  or objections  are upheld the aggrieved party can avail himself of  the  remedy  under Section 19 of the Act.  It  has  been stated  at  the  Bar  that  after  the  impugned  order  the claimants  have  in fact filed civil suits which  are  still pending.   Filing  of the civil suits indicates  the  proper understanding  of  the  position of law by  the  appellants. There  is  no gainsaying that the civil suits filed  by  the claimants  shall be decided on merits and in accordance with the  procedure  established  by  law.  We  have  noted  with concern  that  the  Special Court  has  unnecessarily  spent valuable  public  time in writing the lengthy  judgment  for disposing  of  the claims of the appellants which, we  feel, could  have  been  decided by a brief but  speaking  orders. Brevity  of orders on application of mind and not the length of the order is the criterion for adjudicating the rights of the parties which are otherwise subject to the decision of a civil  court.   It would be appreciated that the  Designated Courts  which  are  otherwise  over-burdened  shall  refrain themselves  from writing such unnecessary lengthy  judgments and  pass appropriate brief orders, surely dealing with  all points,  while  adjudicating the claims of all the  parties. At  any  rate we do not appreciate such lengthy  orders  for deciding   interlocutory   matters.    Agreeing   with   the preliminary  objection of the Additional Solicitor  General, we  hold  that the present appeals are not maintainable  and are accordingly dismissed.