Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
com
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1596 OF 2011
..APPELLANTS
VS
..RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
S. A. BOBDE, J.
LatestLaws.com
2
Page 2
LatestLaws.com
LatestLaws.com
since the Trial Court held the latter to be innocent. Against the aforesaid
order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
5.
scheme of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 does not permit
the District Judge to confirm any attachment of the property though the
criminal court has not validly convicted and found the accused or the
person whose property is sought to be attached as guilty. Learned counsel
submitted that in this case, it was not possible for the criminal court to
have convicted or found Ramachandraiah guilty since he expired in 1991
during the trial. In fact, according to the appellants, no application for
attachment could have been made under these circumstances. Learned
counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer and submitted
that the appellants may not to be allowed to retain property obtained by
ill-gotten means and it was legal for the learned District Judge to have
passed the order of attachment in respect of such property which was
admittedly the subject matter of the charge-sheet. It has, therefore, become
necessary for us to examine whether the property of a person which was
merely case of an offence of misappropriation but who died during the
pendency of the criminal trial can be attached in the hands of his legal
representatives under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944.
6.
LatestLaws.com
1
1.
(1) Where the [State Government or as the case may be, the
Central Government] has reason to believe that any person has
committed (whether after the commencement of this Ordinance or not)
any scheduled offence the [State Government may, whether or not any
Court has taken cognizance of the offence, authorise the making of an
application to the District Judge within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the said person ordinarily resides or carries on
business, for attachment, under this Ordinance, of the money or other
property which the [State Government, or as the case may be, the
Central Government] believes the said person to have procured by
means of the offence, or if such money or property cannot for any
reason be attached, of other property of the said person of value as
nearly as may be equivalent to that of the aforesaid money or other
property.
[Amended by A.O.1950 & again by Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988]
(2) The provisions of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to proceedings for an
order of attachment under this Ordinance as they apply to suits by
the [Government].
(3) An application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied
by one or more affidavits, stating the grounds on which the belief
that the said person has committed any scheduled offence is founded,
and the amount of money or value of other property believed to have
been procured by means of the offence. The application shall also
furnish[Added by Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988]
(a) any information available as to the location for the time
being of any such money or other property and shall, if necessary,
give particulars, including the estimated value, of other property
of the said person;
(b) the names and addresses of any other person believed to have
or to be likely to claim, any interest or title in the property of
the said person.
5
Page 5
LatestLaws.com
LatestLaws.com
there has been a gross mis-carriage of justice at several steps. In the first
place, the finding of the trial court that Ramachandraiah was alone
responsible for the offences is completely vitiated as null and void since
Ramachandraiah had admittedly died on the date this finding was
rendered. It is too well settled that a prosecution cannot continue against a
2
(1955)
(1963)
(2002)
(2005)
(2015)
2
3
7
5
3
SCR
SCR
SCC
SCC
SCC
7
Page 7
LatestLaws.com
finding that Appellant No.1 had committed the offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Further, finding recorded by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court that Appellant No.1 alone had committed the offence and nor
Appellant No.2, must be taken to have misappropriated the said amount
is perverse.
A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to
give flight to ones imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself
with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is
guilty of the crime with which he is charged ..
In
3
State of Punjab v.Jagbir Singh,Baljit Singh and Karan Singh,AIR 1973 SC 2407
8
Page 8
LatestLaws.com
9.
10.
In fact, we find that the learned District Judge could not have
proceedings and the decisions of the courts below are disturbing, to say
the least. In the first place, though the accused had died, the trial court
proceeded with the trial and recorded a conviction two years after his
death. Then, this null and void conviction was used as a basis for making
an attachment of his properties before the Sessions Court. Astonishingly,
all applications succeeded, the attachment was made absolute and over
and above all, the High Court upheld the attachment.
9
Page 9
LatestLaws.com
11.
illegal and liable to be set aside. We also find that the impugned judgment
in appeal is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The orders of the
Courts below are accordingly set aside. The appeal succeeds.
.....................................J
(S.A. BOBDE)
........................................J
(AMITAVA ROY)
NEW DELHI,
4TH JULY, 2016
10
Page 10