The court clarified that property attachment orders must be limited to assets reflecting the accused's alleged disproportionate wealth, rejecting broader attachment without specific valuation.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Crl.M.C.Nos.6757/2025 and 6764/2025 have been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’ for short) by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.VC-1/2019 of VACB, Ernakulam, challenging common order in Crl.M.P.No.1682/2024 & Crl.M.P.No.1403/2024 dated 23.05.2025 in the above case.

2. Crl.M.C.No.5590/2025 is at the instance of the accused in V.C.No.6/2021/SCK of VACB, Kozhikode. In this Crl.M.C., order passed in Crl.M.P.No.346/2023 in the above crime, ordering interim attachment is put under challenge.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the VACB. Perused the relevant documents.

4. I shall address the issue involved in Crl.M.C. Nos.6757/2025 and 6764/2025 at first.

5. In this case, the prosecution alleges that the petitioners amassed disproportionate assets to their known sources of income, to the tune of Rs.28,78,399/-, (Rupees twenty eight lakh seventy eight thousand three hundred and ninety nine only), which would come to 64% of the excess of the total income, for which they could not account for. On this premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act’ for short) and Section 13 (1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act, 2018’ for short). The genesis of the case to be borne out from the application filed by the prosecution before the Special Judge, seeking attachment of properties as stated in paragraph No.9 of the petition is as under:

“9. The immovable properties acquired during the check period has already sold by the accused as per Document number 5310/2014, 5311/2014 of SRO Cherupulassery and as per Document No.2127/2012 of SRO Kadambazhipuram. Three properties 1) Thrikandiri-I Village Sry 102/4 as per SRO Cherpulassery Document No.2495/2011 (23.25 cent) in the name of Smt.Sajitha V.P., 2) Thrikadiri-I Village Sry No.-59/1 as per SRO Cherpulassery Document No.2003/01/13 in the name of Hamsa V. (25.77 cent), 3) Kadampazhipuram -I village Sry No.143/7 of SRO Kadambazhipuram Document No.2126/1/2012 in the name of Sajitha V.P. (194.73 cent) acquired during the check period are also likely to be sold. Hence, the I.O. Submitted an Affidavit and application before the Hon'ble EC & SJ Court, Thrissur that necessary steps to confiscate the above mentioned three properties and Rs.9,65,330/- (Rupees Nine lakh Sixty five Thousand Three hundred and Thirty only). This petition is pending before this Hon'ble Court as CMP No.-1403/2024.”

6. The trial court issued notice, for which the petitioners, who are the respondents therein filed objection and finally, on appraisal of the matter in issue, the learned Special Judge ordered to attach the above immovable properties by invoking power under Section 18A of the PC Act, 2018.

7. Multiple contentions are raised at the instance of the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Coming to the crux of the dispute, the same centers on Section 18A of the PC Act, 2018, introduced with effect from 26.07.2018, whereby it has been provided as under:

“18A. Provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to apply to attachment under this Act. (1) Save as otherwise provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (15 of 2003), the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord.38 of 1944) shall, as far as may be, apply to the attachment, administration of attached property and execution of order of attachment or confiscation of money or property procured by means of an offence under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord.38 of 1944) shall have effect, subject to the modification that the references to “District Judge” shall