LexN. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 728 A N. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS. ~- v. STATE OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1627 of 2008) B OCTOBER 17, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Ss.5(1)(e) and 5(2): +- c Pecuniary resource disproportionate to known source of income - Possession of, by accused government servant - r Sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year; trial Court directed to sell by auction item Nos. 1 to 4 of assets and sale proceeds therefrom to be confiscated to State r - During pendency of the appeal before High Court, convict ~ D died - Filing of application by children of the deceased for grant of permission to deposit the appropriate amount in lieu of auction of certain items of assets - Dismissed by High Court .... holding that s. 482 Cr.PC. not empowered the Court to review y t its own order- Correctness of- Held: Correct - However; It is E open to appellants to participate in the auction sale of the as- ~ sets in question - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. .} .. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1273 - S.482 - Inherent power of High Court- Invoking of, to review its own judgment. F Accused, a government servant was allegedly pos- }-- sessing the pecuniary resources disproportionate to the '" I known source of income. He was charged for commit- '¥ r ting the offence under Section 5 (1)(e) read with Section 5 I (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Trial Court ~ G found him guilty of committing the offence and sentenced t him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, to pay a fine of Rs.20,0001- and directed that item No 1 to 4 of the l ~' assets shall be sold in public auction and the sale pro- ""' -,. ceeds s.hall be confiscated to the State. The accused pre- H 728 N. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS. v. STATE 729 OF A.P. ""'Y" ferred criminal appeal. During pendency of the appeal A before the High Court, the appellant died. Appeal was dis- missed by ~he High Court. Appellants, children of the de- ceased, filed an application praying for grant of permis- sion to deposit the amount as considered appropriate in lieu of the confiscation of Item Nos. 1 to 4 of the assets, B which were directed to be sold in public auction. The High --i Court dismissed the application holding that Section 482 Cr.P.C. did not empower the Court to review its own judg- ment by exercising inherent powers. Hence the present ·' appeal. c ~ Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The High Court has rightly noted that it is the present value of the properties which is of relevance and not the value of the assets at the relevant point of D time of seizure. [Para - 7] [732-A] ;. 1.2 It is open to the appellants to participate in the 'f auction for sale of the properties in question as and when held. [Para - 7] [732-8] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E ,_ No. 1627 of 2008 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2006 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 24 7 of 2006 in Crl. Appeal No. 1524 of 1998 F ,,__I Sarvesh Bisaria and Anil Nag for the Appellant. Altaf Fathima and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J 1. Leave granted. =1' l.J \: ..-· 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a -:i. learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dis- missing the application filed by the appellants. H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 'jlll j A 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows; ·~ ~ The appellants are the sons and daughters of the accused N. Ramakrishnaiah in C.C. No.64of1992 on the file of the Prin- cipal Special Judge, for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. He B was charged for the offence under Section 5 (1 )(e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 (in short the 'Old Act') possessing the pecuniary resources dispropor- tionate to the known sources of income. The accused worked -~ as Executive Engineer as on the date of search of his house and other properties. Evidence was adduced and the Special I c ~-.., Judge found the accused guilty, convicted him for the above mentioned offence and sentenced him to undergo simple im- t- prisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in de- fault to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The Spe- cial Judge also directed that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.