IMPORTANT POINTS
Orders of attachment should also be withdrawn on abatement of prosecution.
A criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty.

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

The appellants being legal representatives of one Ramachandraiah who was accused of offences under Sections 409, 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, have filed this appeal against the Judgment and order dated 28-6-2006 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing their petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ramachandraiah, since deceased, who was the husband of Appellant No.1 and father of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, was prosecuted under the aforesaid sections in respect of misappropriation of funds. He was charged with misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 6,57,355.90 during the period 31-7-1987 to 29-6-1988 along with him one Subbarayudu was charged as Accused No.2. In October, 1991, U. Ramachandraiah expired during the trial. The trial court acquitted the Accused No.2 Subbarayudu by Judgment dated 25.10.1993. However, the trial court observed on the basis of oral and documentary evidence that Ramachandraiah alone committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, that there was no oral or documentary evidence placed before the Court to show that Subbarayudu the surviving accused assisted Ramachandraiah in committing the alleged offence. In effect, the trial court found Ramachandraiah responsible for the offences though he could not be adjudged guilty since he had expired.

Proceedings under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance against the property of the deceased

2. In 1997, the State moved an application under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance No. XXXVIII of 1944) for attachment of property of the appellant under the criminal law. Thereon, the District Judge passed an order of interim attachment under Clause 4 of the ordinance on the basis that Ramachandraiah has committed the scheduled offences or that he has procured money or the property in question from the proceeds of such offence. The District Judge issued notice calling upon the appellants to show cause why the order of attachment should not be made absolute. In this order, the District Judge observed that according to the state as many as 30 items mentioned in the schedule were acquired by the said Ramachandraiah either in his own name or his wife's name or in the names of his sons due to illegal amounts drawn by him and a case was filed against Ramachandraiah as accused No.1 and Subbarayudu as accused no.2. The District Judge further observed that the trial court i.e. first Additional District Munsif, Cuddapah found Ramachandraiah had committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution and, therefore, the said Ramachandraiah committed the offence. It was observed by the learned District Judge that Ramachandraiah had been found to have prepared bills in the fictitious names of 21 lecturers during the relevant period and had drawn cash on the basis of the pay bills including the bogus bills since May 1991 and drawn about Rs.38,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-.

3. Thereafter on 1-10-2002, the learned District Judge heard both sides and made the order of interim conditional attachment absolute. He observed that the High Court has refused to interfere with the order of interim conditional attachment and though no counter affidavit had been filed by the appellants, the learned District Judge observed that the appellants have failed to prove that the properties as mentioned in the schedule are the self-acquired properties of U. Ramachandraiah and, therefore, the order is being made absolute.

4. The appellants then challenged the order of the learned District Judge making an interim attachment absolute by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Single Judge held that the amount misappropriated is 6,57,355.90; strangely, on the basis of the charge sheet. The learned Single Judge also observed that Ramachandraiah who alone had committed the offence and not Subbarayudu, must be taken to have misappropriated the said amount since the Trial Cou