9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Ordinance, 1992 and the Notification dated 8th June, 1992 under Section 3(2) of the Ordinance. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the classification of offences under the Special Court Ordinance as arbitrary and without rational basis. The respondent justified the classification based on the need to address illegal transactions in securities involving public funds. The Court found the classification reasonable due to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the Ordinance. 2. The petitioner objected to the wide powers granted to the Custodian under Section 3 to attach property without a hearing or reasoned order, alleging a violation of natural justice and the Rule of Law. The Court explained that Section 3(4) allows the Special Court to direct the Custodian on property attachment, providing a check on arbitrary exercise of powers. 3. The petitioner argued that the lack of provision for de-notifying a person or raising the attachment is a flaw. However, the Court clarified that Section 11 of the Ordinance grants the Special Court independent power over property disposal, ensuring fairness and addressing liabilities. 4. Concerns were raised about the broad wording of Section 3, potentially leading to the notification of innocent parties. The Court emphasized the Ordinance's aim to track property acquired through illegal means, even in third-party possession, to safeguard public funds. The petitioner's objection was dismissed. 5. The petitioner contended that the attachment of property may not correlate with the ultimate liability of the person. The Court explained that Section 9 regulates property attachment to prevent misappropriation and provides recourse for aggrieved parties to seek relief from the Special Court. 6. The Court noted that the Special Court must follow Criminal Procedure Code during trials but can apply relevant laws to other matters. While acknowledging the need for clearer provisions, the Court found Section 3(4) sufficient to ensure a fair hearing and redressal of grievances before the Special Court. 7. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to intervene under Article 226, thereby upholding the validity of the Special Court Ordinance and the related Notification. This detailed analysis covers the challenges raised by the petitioner regarding the constitutional validity of the Special Court Ordinance, property attachment provisions, classification of offences, and the role of the Special Court in addressing grievances and ensuring fairness within the legal framework.
|
