The presumption of innocence remains until conviction; hence, attachment of property ceases upon the death of the accused without conviction, allowing for property release under the Criminal Law Ordinance.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd December 2002, passed by the Judicial Commissioner Ranchi in Petition No. 210 of 1996 arising out of RC 35(A)/ 96- Pat titled State of Bihar through CBI versus Chandra Bhushan Dubey and others; whereby the Ld. Trial Court had made the interim attachment as absolute vide the impugned order by holding as under:

“19. From the record it transpires that the CBI has after investigation found that Schedule-II property had been acquired out of the money of the Animal Husbandry Department unlawfully misappropriated by the Opposite Party No.1 Dr. Chandra Bhjushan Dubey acting as Piggery Development Officer, and Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi and since at that Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey was a public servant, the Annexure-Il properties should be finally attached under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Ordinance 1944.”

2. This case has a checkered history. On 11.03.1996, the Patna High Court passed order in various writ applications for taking over investigation of all fodder scam matters by CBI. On 19.03.1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed order of transferring investigation of Doranda P.S. Case No. 41/1996 to CBI.

Subsequently, R.C. Case No. 35(A)/96 was registered by the CBI u/s 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 & 471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 wherein Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey (Now deceased), the then Piggery Development Officer and others were made accused.

On 30.11.1996, a petition was filed by the CBI vide no. 210/1996 for interim attachment of properties belonging to Dr Chandra Bhushan Dubey (Now deceased) and the appellants herein u/s 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinances 1944. On 06.12.1996, the Ld. Trial Court passed order of interim attachment. On 03.12.2002, the Court of Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi by order dated 03.12.2002 made the interim order absolute in accordance with Section 5 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 till adjudication of R.C. No. 35(A)/96-PAT.

In the month of February 2003, Cr. Appl. No. 216/2003 was preferred by late Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey and the other appellants u/s 11 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinances 1944.

3. On 26.07.2006, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey died. On 02.06.2007 the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by this Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court dated 02.06.2007 and remanded the matter to decide afresh.

On 08.09.2008, the present criminal appeal was again dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court. The court also recorded that Dr Chandra Bhushan Dubey has died on 26-07-2006 upon the statement of the counsel for C.B.I.

The Hon’ble Apex Court again remitted the matter for consideration on merit vide its order dated 3^rd January 2014 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 11-12 of 2014 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3160-3161 of 2012.

4. In the meantime, on 31.01.2012, the Ld. Trial Court in R.C. Case No. 35(A)/1996 has concluded the trial and passed the final judgment; however, the case against this Appellant No.1 stood abated, inasmuch as, the accused Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey died during the pendency of the trial.

5. The grievance of the present appellants is that when the entire attachment is based on presumption that the property so attached by the CBI were acquired by ill-gotten money of late Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey, for which the predicate case was filed being RC case no. 35(A)/ 96- PAT, but during trial itself, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey died on 26-07-2006, and thus, as per the law, the name of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey was deleted from the trial of RC case no. 35(A)/ 96 and therefore,