Summary
Relatives and accused persons in the fodder-scam cases challenged orders making property attachments absolute under the 1944 Ordinance. Although prosecution could not continue against a deceased accused, the existing attachment was not disturbed where his inheriting son was himself convicted and facing another trial. The Court also rejected premature disposal objections and declined to reassess evidence supporting related attachments.
Issues
- Whether the death of Dr S.B. Sinha required release of already attached properties.
- Whether failure to record a Section 12 finding at one trial barred later disposal of attached assets.
- Whether pre-existing or allegedly independently financed assets could remain attached.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(2), 12 and 13, Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944Criminal proceedings had not terminated while an appeal and another trial remained pending; statutory proceedings concerning attached property remained available. (¶ 24–27)
- Section 4, Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944Where allegedly procured money or property is unavailable, other property of the person of equivalent value may be attached. (¶ 29)
Held
- A dead accused cannot be prosecuted or pronounced guilty. Subhadramma, involving initiation of attachment and conviction after death, was distinguishable: here attachment predated death and the property had passed to a legal representative who was himself convicted in one fodder case and facing another. The Court declined Article 136 interference with making that existing attachment absolute. (¶ 20–23)
- Section 12(1) requires a finding when the criminal court is informed before judgment of an existing attachment. The conviction judgment did not show such a representation. More importantly, the appeal remained pending and another trial continued, so proceedings had not terminated under Section 2(2), and Sections 12 and 13 could still govern the assets. (¶ 24–27)
- Whether the attached value exceeded the amount attributable to Ravi Sinha, and the effect of his deposits, could be raised in Section 13 proceedings or under Section 12 in the pending trial. The Court did not determine those valuations in this attachment appeal. (¶ 27)
- The Judicial Commissioner had considered the evidence concerning the Mallick properties after remand, and the High Court had affirmed. Attachment power could extend to equivalent-value property if the allegedly procured assets were unavailable; acquisition of a property in 1955 did not itself exclude attachment. No fresh evidentiary reappraisal under Article 136 was warranted. (¶ 28–30)
Result
All appeals dismissed; the orders making the attachments absolute remained operative, with valuation and statutory disposal questions left for the appropriate proceedings.