The main legal point established in the judgment is that the properties seized during investigation after abatement of the case have to be released in favor of the legal representatives of the deceased in accordance with law, emphasizing the presumption of innocence of the accused until convicted and the procedure for disposal of properties under Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. Patil, J.

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased S.T. Goudar, who was accused in Special Case (PCA) No.11/2011 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act' for short) challenging the order dated 04.12.2014 on an application.

2. The present petitioners filed an application under Section 457 read with Section 458 of Cr.P.C., to release the amount deposited in various banks and also the cash belonging to the deceased which has been seized by the Investigating Officer of Lokayuktha under P.F No.8/2009, P.F No.9/2009 dated 24.10.2009 and P.F No.11/2009 dated 27.10.2009. The Court below after considering the said application on merits and after hearing the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the petitioners-applicants are before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. B.V. Acharya. Though he has not been engaged by the counsel on record, since this matter requires some detailed consideration as the question of law is involved and so far no law has been laid down either by this Court or directly on the point in issue by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court requested him to assist the Court as he is acquainted with the law on the point. The learned Senior Counsel put forth all the details about the law and the facts of the case including various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the Court below has not properly appreciated the law on the point and has wrongly dismissed the application. It is his further submission that whenever properties have been seized during the course of investigation, under such circumstances the Court can attach the said properties on application by the Investigating Agency before the conclusion of the trial. The said process has to be done under Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944. It is his further submission that there are two aspects which have to be kept in mind. Firstly, if cognizance is taken and a property has been attached, if the case is abated against the sole accused, then under such circumstances, it is nothing but resulting in acquittal of the accused. He further submitted that in such a situation it has to be presumed about innocence of the accused till he is convicted. Secondly, the properties have to be released in favour of the accused, where the final judgment and order of the Criminal Court is one of acquittal. In that situation the property attached or seized has to be released in favour of accused, if there is no appeal or after the disposal of the appeal. He further submitted that no procedure has been stipulated under the PC Act under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have gone through the general principles of the law as contemplated under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., for disposal of the property. He further submitted that the only point which ought to have been considered by the trial Court is, it ought to have satisfied whether the applicants are the only legal heirs or representatives of the deceased or any other claimants are there. On the basis of the records, with limited inquiry if it is established that the applicants are the only legal representatives, then under such circumstances there is no other option left open to the Court, except to release the properties in favour of the applicants. He further submitted that the order of confiscation can be made when the trial has been held and a finding has been given by the Court while recording conviction. But in the instant case the sole accused has died and the case has been abated before the commencement of the trial. Then under such circumstances, no trial or proceeding can be held. There is no possibility of proceedings as