The attachment of assets of persons other than the accused is permissible under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, if the applicant can demonstrate that the source of the money or assets acquired in the name of third parties is the money procured from the scheduled offence. However, the attachment of assets of a deceased person is not permissible under the Ordinance.

JUDGMENT

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The appellants herein have preferred the present appeal against the order of the Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Kurnool, dated 04.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.707 of 2022.

2. The appellants 1 to 3 are accused Nos.1, 2 and 12 in Crime No.1 of 2020 registered in the CID Regional office, Tirupati. The other appellants are not arrayed as accused in the case. A charge sheet has also been filed after investigation, before the Special Judge for trial of ACB cases in Rayalaseema Region, Kurnool, for offences punishable under Sections420, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468, 120-B read with Sections 34 & 109 IPC and Sections 79(1)(a), 79(l)(f) read with Sections 79(2), 79(A) (1)(b), 79A (1) (e), read with Sections 79A (2) and 79(3)(i) read with Section 79(1)(h) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. Cognizance of this case has been taken by the trial Court as C.C.No.9 of 2022.

3. Even while the case was pending investigation, authorisation was sought, from the State Government, for invoking the provisions of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1944 for attachment of assets standing in the name of the appellants herein. The Government had authorised filing of an application for attachment of the properties before the Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region by way of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 25.07.2022. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID Regional Office, Tirupati, had then moved Crl.M.P.No.707 of 2022 in Crime No.1 of 2020 before the Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, at Kurnool for attachment of Properties set out in Annexures 1 to 6 of the application. The Special Judge, by an order dated 04.08.2022 had granted ad interim order of attachment of the assets enumerated in Annexures 1 to 6, by an order dated 04.08.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have moved the present appeal.

4. The grounds of appeal and the contentions raised in support of the said grounds, urged by Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, are as follows:

a) The 1st appellant is accused of having misused his position as Chairman of APCO and as the person controlling the society known as Dayankhanpalli Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., between the period 2005 to 2019 to divert huge funds, by way of various underhand means which would amount to various offences mentioned above. Appellants 2 and 3 were also shown as accused, who had assisted and abetted the 1st appellant in these activities. The application for attachment is said to have been filed under the provisions of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1944, for the purpose of attaching those assets and properties which were acquired by the 1st appellant, with the monies which had been earned by the 1st appellant on account of the commission of various offences falling under the provisions of law mentioned above. However, the assets of appellants 4 to 6, who are not accused in the said case have also been attached under the order in appeal.

b) The provisions of the Criminal Law Ordinance only provide for attachment of property or assets of the accused themselves and the said provisions cannot be used to attach the properties which are in the name of the persons who are not accused in the underlying offences.

c) The 1st appellant had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.8027 of 2019, contending that the ACB cannot investigate into any of the offences alleged against the 1st appellant as they fall within the purview of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and on account of the fact that the Director General of Police, ACB, had issued a circular directing that the ACB should not investigate the offences in the nature of offences alleged against the petitioner. This Court, by an order dated 15.10.2019, had accepted the said contention and had held that the ACB cannot investigate any of the offences alleged against the 1st appellant herein. However,