IMPORTANT POINTS
When properties of an accused is already provisionally attached and he dies but the properties are inherited by his son who himself is an accused facing trial in many cases there will be no fault in making the interim attachment absolute.
When the accused is already convicted and the prosecution has not represented that any property has been attached, court was not obliged to pass any order u/s 12(1).
Court has ample power to deal with attached properties after termination of criminal proceedings.
Attachment of properties is not confined to properties procured out of defalcated amount. Any other property can be attached to recover the defalcated amount.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

All these appeals arise out of proceedings undertaken under Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, by which certain properties were attached on an application filed on behalf of the State, which attachments were subsequently made absolute. Criminal appeals filed before the High Court by the appellants were dismissed leading to filing of these criminal appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 1561 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 1521 of 2008 have been filed against the common judgment dated 21.06.2007 of Jharkhand High Court dismissing two criminal appeals filed by the appellants.

2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1542-1543 of 2008 as well as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1558-1559 of 2008 have been filed against the common judgment dated 21.06.2007 of Jharkhand High Court by which two criminal appeals filed by appellants were dismissed.

Facts of Criminal Appeal No. 1561 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 1521 of 2008

3. This Court vide its order dated 19.03.1996 in State of Bihar & Anr. v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party & Anr., (1996) 3 SCC 682, entrusted a case of large-scale defalcation of public funds, fraudulent transactions and falsification of accounts, to the tune of around Rs. 500 crores, which came to light in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Bihar. A similar situation prevailed in the Education, Cooperation and Fisheries Departments. It was agreed by all the counsel in above case that an in-depth investigation is required to be made. The only controversy between counsel on either side was whether the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, could take the investigation away from the State police and entrust it to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

4. The allegation in brief was that the large number of accused persons in pursuance of a conspiracy defrauded Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand) to the extent of several hundred crores during the period 1990 to 1994 on the basis of fake allotment letters purported to have been issued by the Director, A.H. Department, for purchase of medicines. Fake supplies were shown by the suppliers and money was withdrawn on the basis of fake allotment orders and the same was misappropriated by the accused persons, suppliers, public servants and others. Several criminal cases under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were registered.

5. One Dr. S.B. Sinha, who was a public servant, was found involved in 41 criminal cases registered against various accused. Dr. S.B. Sinha was father of Ravi Sinha, appellant No.1, appellant No.2 Nephew of Dr. S.B. Sinha, appellant No.3 wife of Dr. S.B. Sinha and appellant No. 4 is wife of Ravi Sinha, appellant No.1. An application was filed by the State of Bihar before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Order, 1944, arraying Dr. S.B. Sinha as respondent No.1, the appellant No.1, Ravi Sinha as respondent No.2, the appellant No. 2 as respondent No.4, appellant No.3 as respondent No.5 and appellant No.4 as respondent No.6 to the petition by which properties mentioned in Annexure-II to the petition were to be attached. It was further prayed that the said attachments be made absolute till final termination of the criminal proceedings after submission of charge-sheet, if any, by the C.B.I. In the application, it was mentioned that in the investigation by the C.B.I., it has been found that Dr. S.B. Sinha was involved in 41 cases registered and consequent to conspiracy, Government of Bihar was defrauded to the tune of Rs. 600 crores.

6. Application was filed in RC No.31(A)/96, in which it was stated that money was misappropriated by the accused by causing wrongful gains to themselves and the substantial portion of the money was procured in obtaining various properties. Details of properties possessed by Dr. S.B. Sinha through self and other respondents were mentioned in Annexure-II. In that application