U. SUBHADRAMMA & ORS. versus STATE OF A.P. REP. BY PUB. PROSECUTOR & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 04-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 469 
U. SUBHADRAMMA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. REP. BY PUB. PROSECUTOR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1596of201 I) 
JULY 04, 2016 
[S.A. BOBDE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 -: Clause 3 -
Application for attachment of property - Misappropriation of fimds 
by accused - Death of accused during the pendency of criminal 
trial - Attachment of property of dead accused by District Judge -
Permissibility of- Held: Prosecution cannot cominue against a dead 
person - Such proceedings and findings are contrary to the very 
foundation of criminal jurisprudence - 111 such a case the accused 
does not exist and cannot be convicted - District Judge committed 
a gross error of law in acting upon such a finding and treating 
accused as guilty of such offences while making the order of 
attachment and confirming the said order of attachment - Orders 
of the criminal court vis-a-vis the said accused illegal and set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 If the law requires that the orders of attachment 
should be withdrawn upon acquittal it stands to reason that such 
orders must be withdrawn when the prosecution abates or cannot 
result in a conviction due to the death of the accused, whose 
property is attached. Concept of abatement of a trial could be 
subsumed in the clause where the final judgment and order of 
the Criminal Court is one of acquittal. The presumption of 
innocence of an accused till he is convicted must be borne in 
mind and there is no reason to consider this presumption to have 
vaporized upon the death of an accused. [Para 6] (475-D-F] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.2 A prosecution cannot continue against a dead person. A 
G 
fortiori a criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a 
dead person and find him guilty. Such proceedings and the findings 
are contrary to the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence. In 
such a case the accused docs not exist and cannot be convicted. 
Consequently, the District Judge committed a gross error of law 
469 
H 
470 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 3 S.C.R. 
in acting upon such a finding and treating R as guilty of such 
offences while making the order of attachment and while 
confirming the said order of attachment of properties. In such 
circumstance, the courts below erred in recording the finding 
that appellant No.1 had committed the offence as alleged by the 
prosecution. Further, finding recorded by the 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. The facts involved 
did not warrant presumption of commission of offence by appellant 
No.1 and thus, the findings recorded by the courts below are not 
tenable. [Paras 7, 8, 9) [476-A-C; E-F] 
1.3 The District Judge could not have proceeded with the 
attachment proceedings at all since the attachment proceedings 
were initiated by the State against R under clause 3 of the Criminal 
Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, who was actually dead. Clause 
3 contemplates that such an application must be made to the 
District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the 
said person ordinarily resides or carries on business, in respect 
of property which the State Government believes the said person 
to have procured by means of the offences. It is incomprehensible, 
therefore, that such an application could have been made in regard 
to a dead person who obviously cannot be said to be ordinarily 
resident or carrying on business anywhere. There is no legal 
provision which enables continuance of prosecution upon death 
of the accused. The proceedings and the decisions of the courts 
below are disturbing, 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. The 
orders of the Criminal Court vis-a-vis R are illegal and is set 
aside. The impugned judgment is unsustainable and is set aside. 
[Paras 10, 11) [476-1!'-H; 477-A-C) 
Willie (WILIAM) Slaney v. State of M.P. 1956 AIR 116 : 
1955 SCR 1140; Babu Singh v. State ()f Punjab (1963) 
3 SCR 749; Ashish Batham v. State of 

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