[2015] 14 S.C.R. 985
RAMENDRA@ RAMAN DHULDHUE
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2013)
DECEMBER 10, 2015
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, J.]
A
B
M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 -
Retrospective applicability of - Discussed - Prevention of
CorruptionAct, 1988-s.13(1)(e).
C
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State of Bihar and
Ors. 2016 (3) SCC 183 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2016 (3) SCC 183
referred to.
Para 5
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 56 of 2013.
D
·From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07 .2012 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in M. Cr. C.
E
No. 4045 of 2012.
Ashok Mathur, Adv., for the Appellant.
•
C. D. Singh, Adv., for the Responde"nt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivere.d by
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The appellant was appointed on
the post of Assistant Grade Ill in the Regional Transport Office,
Indore.A search was conducted on the residential premises
F
of the appellant on the allegation that the property was acquired G
'from the ill-gotten money by criminal misconduct as per Section
13(1 )(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. After M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 (for
short, "the Act") came into force, the appellant was brought
985
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14S.C.R.
A within the ambit of that Act by declaration under Section 5 of
the Act.
3. As the factual matrix would reveal, after the declaration,
the prosecution filed an application under Section 13(1) for
confiscation of the property under Section 15(3). The appellant
B
protested and filed application for his discharge, but the said
application met with non-success. The appellant approached
the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the order passed by the
Special Judge. It was contended before the High Court that
C the Act could not be made retrospectively applicable inasmuch
as it is a substantive law having penal consequence.
4. The High Court, as is manifest from the impugned order,
after analyzing the provisions and also keeping in view the
0
concept of confiscation, has not accepted the plea of
retrospective applicability of the Act.
5. In our considered opinion, the view expressed by the
High Court is infallible in view of the judgment pronounced by
us today in Civil Appeal Nos. 6448-6452 of 2011 titled
E Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
6. Resultantly, the appeal. being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal dismissed.
Lex