RAVI SINHA & ORS versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 913, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 913 
RAVI SINHA & ORS .. 
v. 
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1561 of2008) 
OCTOBER 05, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J 
Criminal Law Ame111;iment Ordinance, 1944: 
A 
B 
ss. 12 and 13 -
Appellant:~ father-public servant involved in 
criminal cases registered against various accused -Appellant himself C 
involved in large number of cases - Accused persons in pursuance 
of conspiracy had defrauded State Government to the tune of several 
hundred crores - Proceedings undertaken under the 1944 Ordinance 
- Application by State - Attachment of certain properties -
Subsequent~v attachments made absolute - Appeal thereagainst by 
appellants, dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, held: 
Prosecution against appellants father could i10t have been continued 
after his death and no guilt can be pronounced on him, he being 
dead - However, the properties which were already under 
attachment, having come in the hands of appellant as one of the 
legal representatives, who has been convicted in a fodder scam 
case and is facing trial in another case, making attachment order 
absolute, cannot be faulted with - Furthermore, against an order 
of conviction, appeal is already pending in the High Court and in 
one criminal case, trial is already pending against the accused in 
which provisions of ss. 12 and 13 can still be resorted to - Thus, it 
cannot be said that once a judgment is pronounced in a criminal 
case by the Court and if no findings have
been recordec( with regard 
to attached properties, no order can be passed with regard to 
attached properties - It is not necessary to consider the extent of 
amount found to be misappropriated by the appellant and computing 
the value of properties attached - These questions can be raised bv 
. 
. 
. 
appellant in s. 13 proceedings or at the time ojjudgment in pending 
trial by invoking s. 12 - In view thereof. interference by this Court 
in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art. 136 with the order of the High 
Court and of the Judicial Commissioner in making the order of 
attachment absolute, not called jor - Constitution of India - Art. 
136. 
913 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H.
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
s.4 - Several criminal cases registered by CBI against various 
accused - Alleged fraud to the tune of several crores - Allegation 
that one of the accused acquired movable and immovable assets in 
his own name and in the name of family and investment in the property 
not from their own source of income - Proceedings undertaken under 
B 
the 1944 Ordinance - Application by State - Attachment of certain 
properties - Subsequently attachments made absolute - Appeal 
thereagainst, dismissed by the High Court - Held: Perusal of s. 4 
indicate that power to attach the money or other property alleged 
to have been so procured is very much there - Section 4 provides 
that "if it transpires that such money or other property is not 
C 
available fbr attachment, such other property of the said person of 
equivalent value as the District Judge may think fit - Thus, the 
power can be exercised for attaching several properties to take 
care of the amount which alleged to be defaulted- Thus, the proper~v 
which was acquired in the year 1955 could have been attached -
0 
Appf?!!ants 'plea to reappraise the evidence and record a finding 
that the properties attached were purchased by them of their own 
fiiiances need not be gone into 11/Art. 136 - Constitution of lndia -
Art. 136. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
'HELD: Ll No proceedings under Criminal Law 
Amendment Ordinance, 1944 can be undertaken against the 
accused after his death
and the prosecution cannot continue after 
the death of an accused. There cannot be any dispute that after 
death of appellant's father-SB, no prosecution could have been 
conlinued against him, in fact after noticing his death, the charge 
sheet was not submitted by C.B.I. against SB. [Para 21] [925-A-B) 
1.2 It is an admitted position that appellant-RS had been 
convicted in the fodder scam case and in one case trial is already 
going on. There being an order of conviction of RS and in other 
case trial being underway making attachment order absolute 
G 
cannot be faulted with. It is true that prosecution against SB could 
not have been continued after his death and no guilt can be 
pronounced on SB, he being dead. However, the properties which 
were already under attachment, having come in the hands of 
accused RS as one of the legal representatives, who has been 
H 
convicted in a fodder scam case and is facing trial in another case,
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
915 
instant case is not a case where this Court can exercise its A 
jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with the order of the 
High Court and of the Judicial Commissioner in making the order 
of attachment absolute. [Para 23] [926-A-D] 
1.3 A perusal of Section 12(1) indicates that when the Court 
in any criminal trial is represented that an .order of attachment of B 
property has already been passed, the Court shall, if it is convicting 
the accused, record a finding as fo the amount of money or value 
of other property procured by the accused by means of the offence. 
Thus, s.12(1) is to be invoked before the judgment is pronounced 
and the Court is obliged to record a finding when it is represented 
to the Court that an order of attachment of property has been 
C 
passed. [Para 25] (929-8-C] 
1.4 In the instant case against the order of conviction dated 
12.06.2008, appeal is. already pending in the High Court. Thus, 
criminal proceedings have not yet been terminated. Further, in 
one criminal case, trial is already pending against the accused in 
D 
which provisions of Sections 12 and 13 can still be resorted to. 
Thus, it cannot be said that once a judgment is pronounced in a 
criminal case by the Court and if no findings have been recorded 
with regard to attached properties, no order can be passed with 
regard to attached properties. Section 13 gives ample power to 
deal with attached properties after termination
of criminal 
proceedings. Appellants submitted that even accepting the 
allegations against RS, the allegations centre around only to Rs. 
9.75 lakhs and Rs. 2.95 lakhs in R.C. No. 39/1996; and that there 
E 
can be no justification for keeping the properties under attachment 
when the allegations arc only upto the amount given above and 
further in the order granting bail, the appellant has already secured 
F 
the aforesaid amount. It is noticed that one more trial is still 
pending against RS. It is not necessary to consider the extent of 
amount which has been found to be misappropriated by RS and 
computing the value of properties attached. These arc the a 
questions which can very well be raised by the appellant RS in 
Section 13 proceedings or at the time of judgment .in pending 
trial by invoking Section 12 of the Ordinance, 1944. Since this 
Court is confined to the only question that whether the attachment 
order ought not to have been made absolute, and thus need not 
H
916 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 
go into this submission in detail or express any opinion, thus, the 
order passed by the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the 
criminal appeals filed by the appellant against order of Judicial 
Commissioner making the attachment order absolute need no 
interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136. [Para 
27) [930-D-H; 931-A-B] 
l.5 Earlier the interim attachment orders were made 
absolute by Judicial Commissioner, which orders were set aside 
by the High Court and the matter was remanded. After remand, 
show-cause was given by the appellants which have. been 
considered in detail as given by the Judicial Commissioner. 
C Judicial Commissioner vidc order dated 13.10.2004 has referred 
to the various evidences brought on the record including oral 
evidence with regard to properties. After consideration of facts 
and cvldcnces, the Judicial Commissioner found it a fit case to 
make an attachment absolute. The High Court confirmed the said 
D order. In so far as submissions of counsel for the appellants 
regarding the property, which was purchased in 1955, counsel 
for the State submitted that power to attach the property docs 
not confine only to the properties acquired hy ill-gotten money 
but to secure the property misappropriated, any property of the 
accused can be attached. A perusal of Section ·4 indicate that 
E . power to attach the money or other property alleged to have been 
so procured is very much
there. Further, section provides that 
"if it transpires that such money or other property is not available 
for attachment, such other property of the said person of 
equivalent value as the District Judge may think fit ... " Thus, the 
F 
power is not confined and the power can be exercised for attaching 
several properties to take care of the amount which alleged to 
be defaulted. Thus, the submission that the property which was 
acquired in the year 1955 could not have been attached, cannot 
be accepted. The appellants in the instant case virtually are 
asking to reappraise the evidence and record a finding that the 
G properties attached were purchased by them of their own 
finances; which exercise need not be gone into for exercise of 
. jurisdiction under Article 136 in facts and circumstances of the 
instant case. [Para 29, 30) [931-E-H; 932-A-E] 
H
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
State of Bihar & Anr. v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party 
& Anr .. (1996) 3 sec 682 : [1996) 3 SCR 663; 
U. Subhadramma & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 
(2016) 7 SCC 797 : [2016) 3 SCR 469; State of 
Jharkhand v. Laloo Prasad Yadav (2017) 8 SCC 1 
[2017) 3 SCR 630 - referred to. 
[1996) 3 SCR 663 
[2016) 3 SCR 469 
[2017) 3 SCR 630 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
Para3 
Para 13 
Para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1561 of2008. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2007 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 307 of2001 
WITH 
Crl.A. Nos. 1521, 1542-1543 and 1558-1559 of2008. 
917 
A 
B 
c 
D 
K. V. Viswanathan, Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advs. Amit Pawan, 
Abhishek Amritanshu, Hassan Zubair Waris, Akshay Sinha, Akshat 
Srivastava, Mukunda Rao Angara, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Anand Nandan,' 
E 
Ujjwal Jain, Pranay Jain, D. N. Goburdhan, Advs. for the Appellants. 
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ranjana 
Narayan, R. Balasubramanian, Prabhas Bajaj,Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. 
Aaiti Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Disha Vaish,AnkurTalwar, 
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Ms. Nisha Mohandas, B. Krishna Prasad, 
F 
Anil K. Jha, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. I. All these appeals arise out of 
proceedings unde1taken under Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, · 
1944, by which certain properties
were attached on an application filed 
G 
on behalf of the State, which attachments were subsequently made 
absolute. Criminal appeals filed before the High Comt 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 
H
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
been filed against the cominonjudgment dated 21 .06.2007 ofJharkhand · 
High Court dismissing two criminal appeals filed by the appellants. 
2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1542-1543 of2008 as well as Criminal 
Appeal Nos. 1558-1559 of2008 have been filed against the common· 
judgment dated 21.06.2007 of Jharkhand High Court by which two criminal 
B 
appeals filed by appellants were dismissed. 
Facts of Criminal Appeal No. 1561 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal 
No. 1521 of 2008 
3. This Court vi de its order dated 19.03. I 996 in State of Bi/tar & 
Anr. Vs. Ranchi Zila Samta Party & Am., (1996) 3 SCC 682, 
C 
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 ofBihar.Asimilar situation prevailed in the Education, Cooperation 
and Fisheries Departments. It was agreed by alt the counsel in above 
D 
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). 
E 
4. The allegation in brief was that the large number of accused 
persons in pursuance of a conspiracy defrauded Government ofBihar 
(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 
F 
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( I)( c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, I 988 were registered. 
G 
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.I, 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. I. An application 
H 
was filed by the State ofBihar before the Court of Judicial Commissioner,
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
919 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
Ranchi under Section 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Order, 1944, 
A 
arraying Dr. S.B. Sinha as respondent No.l, the appellant No.l, 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 
B 
proceedings after submission of charge-sheet, if µny, 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 ofBihar was defrauded to 
the tune ofRs.600 crores. 
C 
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 po1tion 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 
D 
Annexure-II. In that application, it was further stated that it is apprehended 
that Dr. S.B. Sinha, his wife, children and other respondents will withdraw 
the amounts and dispose of the properties during the course of 
investigation which is in an advanced stage. On
the basis of said 
application, an order was passed on 30.08.1996 by the Judicial 
· Commissioner, Ranchi, by which the application was allowed for ad-
E 
interim attachment of the properties detailed in Annexure-II. It was 
further directed that notice be issued to the opposite parties to show-
cause as to why the interim order of attachment be not made absolute. 
Response to show-cause was shown by respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 to 
the application on 21.02.1997 and respondent Nos. 2 and 6 to the 
f 
application on 26.11.1998/08.12.1998. The respondents also challenged 
the jurisdiction of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Dr. S.B. Sinha died 
on 25.10.1999. Opportunity was granted by Judicial Commissioner to 
produce evidence in support of show-cause given to the Judicial 
Commissioner. 
7. On 26.03.2001, a petition was filed by C.B.I. praying therein 
that order of ad-interim attachment be made absolute. The respondent 
Nos. 2 to 6 to the application did not participate in the proceedings before 
the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. After April, 1999, various dates were 
fixed by the Judicial Commissioner whereby several opportunities were 
G 
H
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
given to the respondents for adducing evidence. Since these opportunities 
were not availed of by the respondents, Judicial Commissioner by an 
order dated 03.05.200 I made the ad-interim attachment of properties 
absolute. On a petition filed under Clause 9(2) of Ordinance for 
appointment of a receiver to manage the attached prope1ties, the Judicial 
B 
Commissioner passed an order on 12.06.2001 djrecting the C.B.I. to 
suggest the names of competent persons for appointment of receiver. 
Aggrieved by the orders dated 03.05.2001 and 12.06.200I, Criminal 
Appeal Nos. 307 and310 of200I was filed by the appellants in the High 
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 
21.06.2007 dismissed the criminal appeals. Aggrieved by the said 
C . judgment, Criminal Appeal Nos. 156I of2008 and I521 of2008 has 
been filed. 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1542-1543 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 1558-1559 of 2008 
8. Several criminal cases were got registered by the C .B.I. against 
D 
different accused persons including one Vijay Kumar Mallick. Vijay 
Kumar Mallick was also an accused in R.C. Case No.28(A)/96, R.C. 
Case No.32(A)/96 and R.C. Case No.33(A)/96. The alleged amount of 
fraud in the said three cases was to the extent ofRs.24,69,60,090/- as 
reported in the First Information Reports. An application was filed before 
E 
the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by State ofBihar against Vijay Kumar 
Mallick( as O.P.
No.I), Smt. Koma! Mallick, (as O.P. No.2) and Sandeep 
Mallick and three other persons. It was alleged in the applicatiol) that in 
the course ofinvestigation, it bas transpired that Vijay Kumar Mallick is 
involved in three cases being R.C. Case No. 28(A)/96, R.C. Case No. 
32(a)/96 and R.C. Case No. 33(A)/96 in which prima facie the amount 
F . defrauded is to the extent ofRs.24,69,60,090/-. It was further alleged 
· that VijayKumar Mallick has acquired huge movable and immovable 
assets in his own name and in the name of his wife and children and 
others at different places. In Annexure-ll, the statement and details of · 
the properties was given. It was further stated that O.P. No. I and 
G 
others have not invested in the properties from their own source of 
income. Request was made in the application for issuing an ad-interim 
order for attachment of properties. On 30.08.1996, the Judicial 
Commissioner passed an ad-interim order attaching the properties as 
per details given in Annexure-IT. The ad-interim order of attachment 
was made absolute on 27.04.2001 and further order on 12.07.2001 was 
H 
passed directing the C.B.I. to suggest names for appointment ofreceiver.
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
921 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
9. Respondent NOs. 2, 3 and 4 to the application had filed criminal 
A 
appeals in the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court of Jharkhand 
vide its order dated 26.03.2003 set aside the orders passed by the Judicial 
Commissioner and further directed the Judicial Commissioner to pass a 
fresh order after hearing the parties. Show-cause was shown before 
the Judicial Commissioner. The Judicial Commissioner after noticing 
B 
the show-cause passed a detailed order dated 13. l 0.2004 making the 
ad-interim order as an absolute. Vide order dated 18. l 0.2004, direction 
was given for appointment of receiver to manage the attached properties. 
By subsequent order dated 14.12.2004, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 
was appointed as receiver. 
10. Criminal appeals were filed against order dated 13.10.2004, 
18.10.2004 and 14.12.2004 being Criminal Appeal Nos. 193 l of 2004 
and 694 of2005 before the Jharkhand High Court. The Division Bench 
c 
of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed both the appeals vide its judgment 
dated 21.06.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment Sandeep Malik has 
filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1542-1543 of 2008 and Kamal Malik has 
D 
filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1558-1559 of2008. 
11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants appearing 
in these criminal appeals as well as learned counsel appearing for the 
State of Jharkhand. 
12. We first take up the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1561 of 2008 and
1521 of2008 filed by Ravi Sinha & Ors. Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned 
senior counsel appearing for the appellants have raised various submissions 
in support of the appeals. The foremost submission raised by Shri K.V. 
Viswanathan is that Dr. S.B. Sinha, who was allegedly the brain behind 
conspiracy having died on 25. l 0.1999, which fact having brought to the 
notice of the Judicial Commissioner, there was no reason to continue the 
attachment and to make the attachment order absolute on 03.05.2001. 
E 
F 
It is submitted that due to death of Dr. S.B. Sinha, criminal proceedings 
against him has abated. Dr. S.B. Sinha no longer could have been 
convicted due to abatement of proceedings and the order of attachment 
ought to have been withdrawn. 
G 
13. Learned senior counsel has relied on judgment of this Court in 
U. Subhadramma & Ors. Vs. State of A11dhra Pradesh, (2016) 7 
SCC 797. He submits that due to death of an accused neither any guilt 
can be pronounced nor any conviction can be ordered and the order of 
H
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
attachment of properties ought to have been withdrawn and the Judicial 
Commissioner committed error in making the order absolute. It is further 
submitted that appellants were alleged to be only name lenders and except 
Ravi Sinha, other three appellants are not involved in fodder scam case. 
In any case, the attachment could have been with regard to the properties 
B 
of Dr. S.B. Sinha and the properties of the present appellants were not 
liable to be attached. Ravi Sinha has been accused in four cases out of 
which in one case, he has been acquitted and in another case, he was 
not sent up for trial. In one case, i.e. RC No. 39/1996, appeal has 
already been filed in the High Court and the case i.e. R.C. No. 68/ 1996 
is pending in the trial court. He fw1her submits that amount alleged to be 
C 
misappropriated in R.C. No. 39/1996 and RC. No. 68/1996 stands secured 
as the same was deposited before the trial court pursuant to orders of 
the Hon 'ble High Court granting him bail. 
14. It has been further contended that C.B.I. had not sought orders 
under Section 12 of the 1944 Ordinance at the stage of conviction in 
D 
R.C. No. 39/1996, it cannot now do so. The stage of Section 12 having 
come and gone, no orders can be passed with regard to properties 
attached. 
E 
F 
15. Shri K.K. Vcnugopal, learned Attorney General refuting the 
submission ofleamed senior counsel for the appellants contends that the 
order of
attachment as well as order making the attachment absolute 
are in accordance with law. He submits that in a fodder scam, which 
relates to non-supply of medicines and in which money more than Rs.600 
crores has been defrauded, the accused are pa11 of a larger conspiracy. 
Ravi Sinha has already been convicted by judgment and order dated 
12.06.2008 in R.C. No. 39(A) ofl 996 (Sp!. No. 41 of 1996), it has been 
proved that he has committed offence. Sentence of Rigorous 
Imprisonment for various offences including fine has been awarded 
against him. The properties at this state where a larger conspiracy was 
hatched and large number of accused having been convicted and/or are 
still facing trial, the attachment of the properties could not have been 
G 
withdrawn. Even though Dr. S.B. Sinha had died in the year 1999, the 
properties attached could not have been released. One of his legal heirs 
was also facing criminal proceedings in the same larger conspiracy to 
misappropriate the Government fund. 
16. Shri K.K. Venugopal further submits that the mere fact that 
H 
allegations against Shri Ravi Sinha in the charge sheet, which was filed
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
923 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
against him were of specific amount cannot be said to mean that once 
A 
the aforesaid amount is mentioned, the properties already attached should 
be withdrawn since properties were acquired under larger conspiracy 
and the smaller conspiracy was part of a larger conspiracy. Shri 
Venugupal has also referred to judgment of this Court in State of 
Jharkhand Vs. Laloo Prasad Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 1. Shri K.K. 
Venugopal answering the submissions with regard to Sections 12 and 13 
B 
of Ordinance contends that proceedings under Sections 12 and 13 are 
independent proceedings and merely because at the time of conviction 
order passed against Ravi Sinha, no mention was made of properties, 
which were attached shall not come in the way in passing an order 
under Section 13 of the Ordinance, 1944. After completion of the criminal 
C 
proceedings, order can be passed under Section 13. 
Submissions in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1542-1543 of 2008 and 
1558-1559 of 2008 
l 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in aforesaid 
criminal appeals contends that the above appeals involved totally different 
D 
issues from the Ravi Sinha's case. The trial court and the High Court 
have not considered the various materials like Income Tax Returns, Wealth 
Tax Returns, Electricity Receipts, House Tax Receipts, Bank Drafts 
etc., which clearly established the independent status/sources ofincome 
of the Appellants. The High
Court has merely confirmed the order of E 
trial comt without consideration of the material. There was no justification 
for attachment of property at SI. No.3 i.e. Kashmere Gate property 
since the said property was acquired in the year 1955 in the name of 
Sandeep Malik. The Property No. 158, Gali Bagichewali, Kashmere 
Gate, Delhi was purchased in the year 1955 in the public auction. The 
property of Engineer's Enclave, New Delhi in which Sandeep Malik is a 
co-owner was purchased in the year 1991 i.e. much before the alleged 
scam. 
F 
18. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has 
refuted the above submission and submitted that application which was 
filed by the State clearly alleged that properties were purchased out of G 
ill-gotten money by Vijay Kumar Mallick in his name and in names ofhis 
relatives. It is further stated that the value of properties was only about 
Rs. 25 lakhs whereas the defalcation alleged was more than a crore, 
hence attachment of other properties of acaused arc also permissible 
under the provisions of Ordinance, 1944. 
H
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
19. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the parties and have perused the records. 
20. We first proceed to the submissions raised by Mr. K.V. 
Viswanathan. The principal submission of Shri K.V. Viswanathan is 
that after death of Dr. S.B. Sinha on 25.10.1999, the attachment of 
properties ought to have been withdrawn since after the death of the 
accused neither any order of conviction can be passed nor even guilt 
can be pronounced. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in 
U. Subhadramma & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (supra). 
This Court in the said case was considering the provisions of Ordinance, 
1944. The properties were attached after the death of accused and 
further conviction was pronounced several years after his death. This 
Court held that no application for attachment could have been made 
after the death of the accused and the conviction pronounced after death 
of the accused was null and void. In Paragraph 12 of the judgment, 
following has been held:-
"12. In fact, we find that the learned District Judge could not 
have proceeded with the attachment proceedings at all since the 
attachment proceedings were initiated by the State against 
Ramachandraiah under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment 
Ordinance, 1944, who was actually dead. Section 3 contemplates 
that such an application must be made to the District Judge within 
the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the said person ordinarily 
resides or carries on business, in respect of property which the 
State Government believes the said person to have procured by 
means of the offences. It is incomprehensible, therefore, that such 
an application could have been made in regard to a dead person 
who obviously cannot be said to be ordinarily resident or carrying 
on business anywhere. There is no legal provision which enables 
continuance of prosecution upon death of the accused. We must 
record that the proceedings and the decisions of the courts below 
are disturbing, to say the least. In the first place, though the accused 
had died, the trial court proceeded with the trial and recorded a 
conviction two years after his death. Then, this null and void 
conviction was used as a basis for making an attachment of his 
properties before the Sessions Court. Astonishingly, all applications 
succeeded, the attachment was made absolute and over and above 
all, the High Court upheld the attachment."
R,AVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
925 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
21. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that no 
A 
proceedings under Ordinance, 1944 can be undertaken against the 
accused after his death and the prosecution cannot continue after the 
death of an accused. There cannot be any dispute that after death of 
Dr. S.B. Sinha, no prosecution could have been continued against him, in 
fact after noticing his death, the charge sheet was not submitted by 
C.B.I. against Dr. S.B. Sinha. 
22. In the present case, there is one fact, which makes the present 
case different from the case of U. S11bltadra111111a & Ors. Vs. State of 
Andhra Pradesh, (supra), i.e. in the present case, Ravi Sinha, the son 
B 
of Dr. S.B. Sinha was himself accused in large number of cases. In one 
case, he had already been convicted and fined. In another case relating 
C 
to the similar fodder scam, i.e., R.C. No. 36/1996, the trial is going on. 
There is a specific allegation that he had received payment but did not 
supply medicine worth Rs.9.75 lakhs in R.C. Case No. 3911996, in which 
he has been convicted. Allegation was against him that the company 
was paid a sum ofRs.5.90 lakhs and there was non-supply of medicine. 
D 
The appellant himself in his appeal No. 1561 of2008 has filed a rejoinder 
affidavit and in Paragraph 16, following has been stated:-
"That what emerges from the aforesaid facts is that out of four 
cases against him Ravi Sinha has been acquitted in one
and not 
sent up for trial in another. Even in the other two, in one the trial 
E 
is underway and in the other he has been convicted but his appeal 
is pending before the Hon 'ble High Court. While nothing needs 
to be said about the first two cases, even with respect to the latter 
two cases, the amount allegedly misappropriated by Ravi Sinha, 
assuming whilst denying that ultimately the charges are found 
true, stands secured as he has already deposited the amount with 
F 
the trial court. Therefore there can be absofutely no rationale for 
initiating separate attachment proceedings against him as the very 
object of the attachment proceedings, under the Ordinance is to 
secure the amount allegedly misappropriated so that in case of 
conviction, the attached assets could be forfeited and liquidated 
G 
to make good the amount misappropriated. Being conscious of 
this legal position, the CBI has not initiated and cannot initiate any 
attachment proceedings against Ravi Sinha but is rising .this issue 
of cases against Ravi Sinha just to prejudice this Hon'ble Court. 
H
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
True copy of a chart dated Nil giving the status of the cases against 
Ravi Sinha is appended hereto markedANNEXURE-R/11" 
23. It is thus an admitted position that Ravi Sinha had been 
convicted in the fodder scam case and in one case trial is already going 
on. There being an order of conviction of Ravi Sinha and in other case 
B 
trial being underway making attachment order absolute cannot be faulted 
with. It is true that prosecution against Dr. S.B. Sinha could not have 
been continued after his death and no guilt can be pronounced of Dr. 
S.B. Sinha, he being dead. However, the properties which were already 
under attachment, having come in the hands of accused Ravi Sinha as 
c 
one of the legal representatives, who has been convicted in a fodder 
scam case and is facing trial in another case, present is not a case where 
this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with 
the order of the High Court and of the Judicial Commissioner in making 
the order of attachment absolute. We thus do not find the present case 
fit to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 on the above submission 
D of learned counsel for the appellants. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
24. The submission raised by Mr. Viswanathan in regard to 
Sections 12 and 13 of the Ordinance needs now to be considered. Sections 
12 and 13 of the Ordinance are as under:-
"12. Criminal Courts to evaluate property procured by scheduled 
offences. 
(I)
Where before judgment is pronounced in any criminal trial for 
a scheduled offence it is represented to the Court that an order of 
attachment of property has been passed under this Ordinance in 
connection with such offence, the Court shall, if it is Convicting 
the accused, record a finding as to the amount of money or value 
of other property procured by the accused by means of the offence. 
(2) fu any appeal or rcvisional proceedings against such conviction, 
the appellate or rcvisional Court shall unless it sets aside the 
conviction, either confirm such finding or modify it in such manner 
as it thinks proper. 
(3) In any appeal or rcvisional proceedings against an order of 
acquittal passed in a trial such as is referred to in sub-section ( l ), 
the appellate or revisional Court, if it convicts the accused, shall 
record a finding such as is referred to in that sub-section.
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
927 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
( 4) Where the accused is convicted of a scheduled offence other 
A 
than one specified in item I of the Schedule to this Ordinance and 
where it appears that the offence has caused loss to more than 
one Government referred to in the said schedule or local authority 
the finding referred to in this section shall indicate the amount of 
loss sustained by each such Government or local authority. 
B 
(5) Where the accused is convicted at the same trial of one or 
more offences specified in item I of the Schedule to this Ordinance 
and of one or more offences specified in any of the other items of 
the said Schedule, the finding referred to in this section shall indicate 
separately the amounts procured by means of the two classes of 
offences. 
C 
13. Disposal of attached property upon termination of criminal 
proceedings. 
( 1) Upon the termination of any criminal proceedings for any 
scheduled offence in respect of which any order of attachment of D 
property has been made under this Ordinance or security given in 
lieu thereof, the agent of the [State Government or, as the case 
may be, the Central Government] shall, without delay inform the 
District Judge, and shall where criminal proceedings have been 
taken in any Court, furnish the District Judge with a copy of the 
judgment or order of the trying Court and with copies of the 
E 
judgments or orders, if any, of the appellate or revisional Courts
thereon. 
(2) Where it is reported to the District Judge under sub-section 
( 1) that cognizance of the alleged scheduled offence has not been 
taken or where the final judgment or order of the Criminal Court 
F 
is one of acquittal, the District Judge shall forthwith withdraw any 
orders of attachment of property made in connection with the 
offence, or where security has been given in lieu of such 
attachment, order such security to be returned. 
(3) Where the final judgment or order of the Criminal Courts is 
G 
one of conviction, the District Judge shall order that from the 
property of the convicted person attached under this Ordinance 
or out of the security given in lieu of such attachment, there shall 
be forfeited to Government such amount or value as is found in 
the final judgment or order of the Criminal Courts in pursuance of H
928 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 
Section 12 to have been procured by the convicted person by 
means of the offence, together with the costs of attachment as 
determined by the District Judge and where the finaljudgment or 
order of the Criminal Courts has imposed or upheld a sentence of 
fine on the said person (whether alone or in conjunction with any 
other punishment), the District Judge may order, without prejudice 
to any other mode of recovery, that the said fine shall be recovered 
from the residue of the said attached property or of the security 
given in lieu ofattachment. 
( 4) Where the amounts ordered to be forfeited or recovered under 
sub-section (3) exceed the value of the property of the convicted 
person attached, and where the property of any transferee of the 
convicted person has been attached under Section 6, the District 
Judge shall order that the balance of the amount ordered to be 
forfeited under sub-section (3) together with the costs of 
attachment of the transferee's property as determined by the 
District Judge shall be forfeited to Government from the attached 
property of the transferee or out of the security given in lieu of 
such attachment; and the District Judge may order, without 
prejudice to any other mode of recovery that any fine referred to 
in sub-section (3) or any portion thereofnot recovered under that 
sub-section shall be recovered from the attached property of the 
transferee or out of
security given in lieu of such attachment. 
(5) If any property remains under attachment in respect of any 
scheduled offence of any security given in lieu of such attachment 
remains with the District Judge after his orders under sub-section 
(3) and (4) have been carried into effect, the order of attachment 
in respect of such property remaining shall be forthwith withdrawn 
or as the case may be, the remainder of the security returned, 
under the orders of the District Judge. 
(6) Every sum ordered to be forfeited under this section in 
connection with any scheduled offence other than one specified 
in item I of the Schedule to this Ordinance shall, after deduction 
of the costs ofattachment as determined by the District Judge, be 
credited to the Government {being a Government referred to in 
the said Schedule J or local authority to which the offence has 
caused loss, or where there is more than one such Government or
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
929 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
local authority, the sum shall, after such deduction as aforesaid, 
A 
be distributed among them in proportion to the loss sustained by 
each." 
25. A perusal of Section 12(1) indicates that when the Court in 
any criminal trial is represented that an order of attachment of property 
has already been passed, the Court shall, if it is convicting the accused, 
record a finding as to the amount of money or value of other property 
procured by the accused by means of the offence. Thus, Section 12( 1) 
is to be invoked before the judgment is pronounced and the Court is 
obliged to record a finding when it is represented to the Court that an 
order of attachment of property has been passed. 
B 
c 
26. Learned Attorney General has placed before us a copy of the 
judgment dated 12.06.2008 of trial court in R.C. No. 39(A) of 1996 
convicting Ravi Sinha. A perusal of which does not indicate that Court 
was represented by C.B.I. that any property has already been attached. 
Thus, the present is not a case where any order was to be passed by the 
Court under Section 12(1). In the submission, it has been pressed by 
D 
Mr. Viswanathan that once stage under Section 12(1) has passed, on it 
cannot be done later. According to him, now no order can be passed 
with regard to attached properties, hence there is no justification for 
continuation of attachment. Whether any order can still be passed with 
regard to attached
property is a question to be answered. Section 13 of E 
the Ordinance, 1944 as stated above provides for disposal of attached 
property upon termination of criminal proceedings. Termination of criminal 
proceedings are defined in Section 2(2) of the Ordinance, 1944, which 
provides as follows;-
"2(2). For the purpose of this Ordinance, the date of the termination 
F 
of criminal proceeding shall be deemed to be 
(a)where such proceeding are taken to the Supreme Court in 
appeal, whether on the certificate of a High Court or otherwise, 
the date on which the Supreme Court passes its final order in 
such appeal; or 
G 
(b) where such proceedings are taken to the High Court and orders 
are passed thereon and 
(i) no application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the 
Supreme Court is made to the High Court, the day immediately 
H
930 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
following the expiry of ninety days from the date on which the 
High Court passes its final orders; 
(ii) an application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the 
Supreme Court has been refused by the High Court, the day 
immediately following the expiry of sixty days from the date of 
the refusal of the certificate; 
(iii) a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has 
been granted by the High Court, but no appeal is lodged in the 
Supreme Court, the day immediately following the expiry of 
thirty days from the date of the order granting the certificate; 
or 
(c) where such proceedings are not taken to the High Court, the 
day immediately following the expiry of sixty days from the date 
of the last judgment or order of a Criminal Court in the 
Proceedings." 
D 
27. In the present case against the order of conviction dated 
12.06.2008, appeal is already pending in the High Court as has been 
pleaded by the appellant. Thus, criminal proceedings have not yet been 
terminated. Further, in one criminal case, trial is already pending against 
the accused in which provisions of Sections 12 and 13 can still be resorted 
E 
to. Thus, this submission cannot be accepted that once a j udgmcnt is 
pronounced in a criminal case by the Court and if no findings have been 
recorded with regard to attached properties, no order can be passed 
· with regard to attached properties. Section 13 gives ample power to 
deal
with attached properties after termination of criminal proceedings. 
Mr. Viswanathan has also submitted that even accepting the allegations 
F 
against Ravi Sinha, the allegations centre around only to Rs. 9. 75 lakhs 
and Rs. 2.95 lakhs in R.C. No. 39/1996. He submits that there can be no 
justification for keeping the properties under attachment when the 
allegations are only upto the amount given above and further in the order 
granting bail, the appellant has already secured the aforesaid amount. 
G 
We have already noticed that one more trial is still pending against Ravi 
Sinha. It is not necessary for us to consider the extent of amount which 
has been found to be misappropriated by Ravi Sinha and computing the 
value of properties attached. These are the questions which can very 
well be raised by the appellant Ravi Sinha in Section 13 proceedings or 
at the time of judgment in pending trial by invoking Section 12 of the 
H
RAVI SINHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
931 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
Ordinance, 1944. We are since confined to the only question in the 
A 
present case; i.e. whether the attachment order ought not to have been 
made absolute, and thus need not go into this submission in detail or 
express any opinion? We thus are of the view that order passed by the 
Jharkhand High Court dismissing the criminal appeals filed by the appellant 
against order of Judicial Commissioner making the attachment order 
B 
absolute need no interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 
136. 
28. Now, we come to the criminal appeals ofSandeep Malik and 
Kamal Malik. The High Court while dismissing the criminal appeals 
filed by the appellant has made following observations in Paragraph 8 :-
"Perusal of the impugned order dated 13 .10.2004 clearly indicates c 
that the court below had considered each and every aspect of the 
matter and gave reasoning as to how the opp. party-appellants 
have failed to prove that those properties were purchased out of 
their own source of income. The court below, on the other hand, 
would refer to various materials collected by the prosecuting D 
agency to show that those properties must have been purchased 
by the appellant no. l, Vijay Kumar Mallik, through ill-gotten money. 
There is no dispute in the fact that other appellants arc closely 
related with appellant no. l, Vijay Kumar Mallik, who has been 
convicted ultimately by the court below." 
29. As
noted above, earlier the interim attachment orders were 
made absolute by Judicial Commissioner, which orders were set aside 
by the High Court and the matter was remanded. After remand, show-
cause was given by the appellants which we have considered in detail 
E 
as given by the Judicial Commissioner. Judicial Commissioncrvide order 
F 
dated 13.10.2004 has referred to the various evidences brought on the 
record including oral evidence with regard to properties i.e. Engineers 
Enclave, as well as 158, Bageechewali, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi. 
There is a detailed consideration from Page 76 to Page 81 of the paper 
book of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1558-1559 of2008. After considerntion 
of facts and evidences, the Judicial Commissioner was found it a fit 
G 
case to make an attachment absolute. The High Court has confirmed 
the aforesaid order vidc its judgment dated 21.06.2007. In so far as 
submissions oflcarned counsel for the appellants regarding Kashmcrc 
Gate property, which was purchased in 1955, learned counsel for the 
State has submitted that power to attach the property docs not confine 
H
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
only to the properties acquired by ill-gotten money but to secure the 
property misappropriated, any property of the accused can be attached. 
A perusal of Section 4 of Ordinance, 1944 indicate that power to attach 
the money or other property alleged to have been so procured is very 
much there. Further, section provides that "if it transpires that such 
B 
c 
D 
money or other property is not available for attachment, such other 
property of the said person of equivalent value as the District Judge may 
think fit ... " Thus, the power is not confined and the power can be 
exercised for attaching several properties to take care of the amount 
which alleged to be defaulted. In the present case, in the order making 
. the attachment absolute, following observations have been made:-
"In the present case annexure-I to the main application shows 
that the amount allegedly received by O.P. No.I from A.S.D. 
Chaibasa is Rs. l ,49,41,000/- Annexure-II to the main application 
shows the valuation of the attached properties to be Rs.25 lacs 
which is much less than the amount said to have been procured 
by means of scheduled offences .... " 
Thus, the submission that the property which was acquired in the 
year 1955 could not have been attached cannot be accepted. 
30. The appellants in the present case virtually are asking us to 
reappraise the evidence and record a finding that the properties attached 
E 
rere purchased by them of
their own finances; which exercise need not 
be gone into for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 in facts and 
circumstances of the present case. 
31. In result, all the appeals are dismissed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals dismissed.