Confiscation proceedings under special statutes for disproportionate assets do not abate upon the death of the public servant. Such proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, and the statute provides exhaustive grounds for property return, excluding the death of the accused as a basis for abatement.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 13(2) - Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 - Sections 13, 14, 15, 19 - Confiscation of property - Disproportionate assets - Death of public servant - Whether confiscation proceedings abate upon death of public servant - Held, no - Confiscation proceedings are not criminal proceedings per se - Statute provides specific grounds for return of property - Death of public servant not a ground for abatement - Proceedings against spouse or relative can continue. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Abatement - Meaning of - Discontinuation of criminal proceedings due to death of accused - Does not apply to confiscation proceedings under special statute - Distinction between acquittal and abatement - Death of public servant does not extinguish liability for illegally acquired property. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Proceedings were initiated against a public servant and a relative for acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income. An authorized officer ordered the confiscation of these assets. During the pendency of the appeal against the confiscation order, the public servant passed away. The lower appellate court held that the proceedings abated upon the death of the public servant, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation order.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the special statute governing confiscation is distinct from criminal proceedings. The statute provides exhaustive grounds for the return of confiscated property, which do not include the death of the public servant. Since the relative was also a party to the proceedings and had been issued notice, the proceedings against the relative could not be set aside merely due to the death of the public servant.

Issues: Whether confiscation proceedings under the special statute abate upon the death of the public servant, and whether such proceedings can continue against a relative or spouse.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation proceedings under the special statute are not criminal trials and do not automatically abate upon the death of the public servant. The statute provides specific conditions for the return of property, and the death of the accused is not one of them. The proceedings remain maintainable against other parties involved in the holding of the assets.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned judgments set aside; matters restored to the appellate court for decision on merits.

Table of Content
1. statutory basis for confiscating property acquired through illegal means. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

Signature Not Verified SWETA BALODI Date: 2026.03.20 Reason:

Criminal Appeal@ SLP (Crl) 7454 of 2025

2. This appeal at the instance of the State of Bihar takes exception to Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.662 of 2013, which was allowed in favour of the Respondent herein in terms of judgment dated 27^th September 2023, setting aside attachment proceedings against the respondent on account of the fact that her husband, namely Ravindra Prasad Singh, the main accused in two FIRs viz., Vigilance P.S. Case No.52/2009 under Sections 7, 13(2)

1 read with 13(1)(d), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , 2 and 409, 201, 120-B, Indian Penal Code 1860 Vigilance P.S. Case No. 84/2009 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(e), P.C.

Act, had passed away.

3. The period during which the husband of the respondent is alleged to have amassed disproportionate assets was between 28^th June 1975 to 11^th May 2009 to the tune of Rs.12,96,516/-, apart from several immovable properties and other valuables. A chargesheet was filed on 7^th October 2009. The Act under which the present proceedings came to be before the High Court, came into effect on 8^th February 2010. Notice was issued to both the respondent and her husband on 17^th August 2012. Having

1 PC Act

2 IPC

considered the responses, the Authorised Officer, by order dated 5^th August 2013 passed in Confiscation Case No.6 of 2012, ordered confiscation of the assets listed in Schedule A -1 and 2 and B of the petition. The reasoning of the Authorised Officer is as follows:

17. Now I will come to the defence, taken by O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.1, regarding income of O.P. No. 2 generated through her skills in stitching, knitting, sewing etc. O.P. No. 2 is wife of O.P. No.1 the delinquent Govt. Servant. Admittedly she boasts of doing business in stitching, knitting, sewing etc. and earning huge amounts to the tune of Rs. 13,20,392/- during the check period and through her personal income and through other sources as detailed in para 10 and 11 of her rejoinder she invested Rs.13,16,818 out of which amounts of investment in purchase of land is Rs.9,85,700/- O.P. No.1 was a govt. servant and as such was subject to Bihar govt. Servant conduct Rules 1976 and rule 16(2) of which clearly stipulates that if any member of the Govt. servant’s family is engaged in any business or trade, he will inform about the same to the govt. Further rule 19(2) enshrines that no Govt. servant shall, without prior information to the Govt. acquire any immovable properties either in his name or in name of any of his family members. /further sub rule 4 of Rule 19 stipulates that State Govt. or concerned authority may be special or general order demand/force its employees to give detail about acquisition of movable and immovable properties by him or his family members and movable properties includes life Insurance Policies, annual premium of which exceeds Rs.30,000/-. Now in this case nothing has been said about compliance of aforesaid rules by O.P. No.1. Such huge landed properties were acquired by his wife in Patna district and New Delhi without any information to the Govt. Such huge amount of investment have been made by his wife in different L.I.C. Polices but no information was given to the govt. Sub rule (1) of Rule 19 requires that every Govt. servant on the date of his first appointment and thereafter on interval of every 12 months shall given declaration of his assets and liabilities in the prescribed from which includes declaration about both immovable and movable properties acquired by him or in name of his family members or through ancestral property. But O.P. No.1 is completely silent about compliance of the same. The O.P. No. 1 and 2 have been boasting of filing I.T. Return by O.P. No. 2 but surprisingly O.P. No. 1 is completely silent about filing of his I.T. Return or statement of income or T.D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1582

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJState Of Bihar – AppellantVersusSudha Singh – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. of 2026|Criminal Appeal No. of 2026

Cases Referred (3)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ
State Of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026|Criminal Appeal No. of 2026