Legal representatives of a deceased accused cannot claim return of seized assets without proving their origins; the Supreme Court's confiscation order remains binding despite the abatement of proceedings.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Shri S.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1972 of 2023 and Shri Sathyakumar.M., learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1973 of 2023. Both the appellants claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Selvi J.Jayalalitha-accused No.1 in Special Case No.208 of 2004 and Shri Kiran S.Javali, learned Special Public Prosecutor along with Shri Sandesh J Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent.

2. These two appeals are filed by two of legal representatives of Selvi J.Jayalalitha-accused No.1 in Special Case No.208 of 2004, which ended in an order of conviction by the learned Trial Judge; acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.835 to 838 of 2014 by order dated 11.05.2015, which was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.300 to 303 of 2017 dated 14.02.2017.

3. Relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is in paragraph No.541, which is culled out herein for ready reference:

"xxxx Therefore, we hold that as the sole public servant has died being A1 in this matter, in our opinion, though the appeals against her have abated, even then A2 to A4 are liable to be convicted and sentenced in the manner as has been held by the Trial Judge".

4. After the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the criminal appeal as referred to supra, an application under Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, Cr.P.C.) came to be filed by the appellants herein separately seeking for lifting the attachment in respect of immovable properties in Special Case No.208 of 2004. Both the applications were opposed by the prosecution. The learned Judge heard the matter on those applications filed by Shri J.Deepa, and Smt.J.Deepa who are the legal representatives of deceased accused No.1 in Special Case No.208 of 2004. Those applications were dismissed by order dated 12.07.2023.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants are before this Court in these two appeals.

6. Shri S.Satheesh Kumar and Shri Sathya Kumar.M., learned counsel representing Shri J.Deepak and Smt.J.Deepa reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that as could be seen from the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the accused No.1 was convicted by the Trial Judge, acquitted by this Court in the aforesaid appeal and later on, the proceedings instituted by the State as against the accused No.1 stood abated. Therefore, accused No.1 cannot be treated as a convict resulting in the properties seized by the prosecution to be confiscated, which was the subject matter of Special Case No.208 of 2004. As such, those properties are to be returned by lifting the attachment order passed under the Ordinance to Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947.

7. They further submitted that the assets seized by the Prosecution Agency also includes the assets, which were possessed by accused No.1 earlier to check period and unless there is a segregation made by the prosecution as to what are the assets possessed by the accused No.1 before the check period and after the check period. As such, there cannot be any order of attachment which would be permitted to continue, having regard to the fact that conviction order passed by the Trial Judge, set aside by this Court and the appeal of the State against accused No.1 stood abated. Therefore, the impugned order in both the appeals needs to be set aside by allowing the application filed under