RAVI SINHA & ORS versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 05-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 913 
RAVI SINHA & ORS .. 
v. 
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1561 of2008) 
OCTOBER 05, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J 
Criminal Law Ame111;iment Ordinance, 1944: 
A 
B 
ss. 12 and 13 -
Appellant:~ father-public servant involved in 
criminal cases registered against various accused -Appellant himself C 
involved in large number of cases - Accused persons in pursuance 
of conspiracy had defrauded State Government to the tune of several 
hundred crores - Proceedings undertaken under the 1944 Ordinance 
- Application by State - Attachment of certain properties -
Subsequent~v attachments made absolute - Appeal thereagainst by 
appellants, dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, held: 
Prosecution against appellants father could i10t have been continued 
after his death and no guilt can be pronounced on him, he being 
dead - However, the properties which were already under 
attachment, having come in the hands of appellant as one of the 
legal representatives, who has been convicted in a fodder scam 
case and is facing trial in another case, making attachment order 
absolute, cannot be faulted with - Furthermore, against an order 
of conviction, appeal is already pending in the High Court and in 
one criminal case, trial is already pending against the accused in 
which provisions of ss. 12 and 13 can still be resorted to - Thus, it 
cannot be said that once a judgment is pronounced in a criminal 
case by the Court and if no findings have been recordec( with regard 
to attached properties, no order can be passed with regard to 
attached properties - It is not necessary to consider the extent of 
amount found to be misappropriated by the appellant and computing 
the value of properties attached - These questions can be raised bv 
. 
. 
. 
appellant in s. 13 proceedings or at the time ojjudgment in pending 
trial by invoking s. 12 - In view thereof. interference by this Court 
in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art. 136 with the order of the High 
Court and of the Judicial Commissioner in making the order of 
attachment absolute, not called jor - Constitution of India - Art. 
136. 
913 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H. 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
s.4 - Several criminal cases registered by CBI against various 
accused - Alleged fraud to the tune of several crores - Allegation 
that one of the accused acquired movable and immovable assets in 
his own name and in the name of family and investment in the property 
not from their own source of income - Proceedings undertaken under 
B 
the 1944 Ordinance - Application by State - Attachment of certain 
properties - Subsequently attachments made absolute - Appeal 
thereagainst, dismissed by the High Court - Held: Perusal of s. 4 
indicate that power to attach the money or other property alleged 
to have been so procured is very much there - Section 4 provides 
that "if it transpires that such money or other property is not 
C 
available fbr attachment, such other property of the said person of 
equivalent value as the District Judge may think fit - Thus, the 
power can be exercised for attaching several properties to take 
care of the amount which alleged to be defaulted- Thus, the proper~v 
which was acquired in the year 1955 could have been attached -
0 
Appf?!!ants 'plea to reappraise the evidence and record a finding 
that the properties attached were purchased by them of their own 
fiiiances need not be gone into 11/Art. 136 - Constitution of lndia -
Art. 136. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
'HELD: Ll No proceedings under Criminal Law 
Amendment Ordinance, 1944 can be undertaken against the 
accused after his death and the prosecution cannot continue after 
the death of an accused. There cannot be any dispute that after 
death of appellant's father-SB, no prosecution could have been 
conlinued against him, in fact after noticing his death, the charge 
sheet was not submitted by C.B.I. against SB. [Para 21] [925-A-B) 
1.2 It is an admitted position that appellant-RS had been 
convicted in the fodder scam case and in one case trial is already 
going on. There being an order of conviction of RS and in other 
case trial being underway making attachment order absolute 
G 
cannot be faulted with. It is true that prosecution against SB could 
not have been continued after his death and no guilt can be 
pronounced on SB, he being dead. However, the properties which 
were already under attachment, having come in the hands of 
accused 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.