Case: Ravi Sinha &amp; Others Vs. State of Jharkhand &amp; Others

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 ofdefalcation 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 aninvestigation 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 Fake supplies were shown by the suppliers and money was withdrawn on the basis of fake allotment orders and the same was misappropriated by the accused persons, suppliers, public servants and others.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 into 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 ofif 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 inIn 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 forattachment of the properties detailed inIt was further directed that notice be issued to the opposite parties toas to why the interim order of attachment be not made absolute. Response towas shown by respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 to the application on 21.02.1997 and respondent Nos. 2 and 6 to the 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 ofgiven to the Judicial Commissioner.7. On 26.03.2001, a petition was filed by C.B.I. praying therein that order ofattachment 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 given to the respondents for adducing evidence. Since these opportunities were not availed of by the respondents, Judicial Commissioner by an order dated 03.05.2001 made theattachment of properties absolute. On a petition filed under Clause 9(2) of Ordinance for appointment of a receiver to manage the attached properties, the Judicial Commissioner passed an order on 12.06.2001 directing the C.B.I. to suggest the names of competent persons for appointment of receiver. Aggrieved by the orders dated 03.05.2001 and 12.06.2001, Criminal Appeal Nos. 307 and 310 of 2001 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 judgment, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1561 of 2008 and 1521 of 2008 has been filed.Criminal Appeal Nos.of 2008 and Criminal Appeal Nos.of 20088. Several criminal cases were got registered by the C.B.I. against 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 of Rs. 24,69,60,090/as reported in the First Information Reports. An application was filed before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by State of Bihar against Vijay Kumar Mallick(as O.P. No.1), Smt. Komal Mallick, (as O.P. No.2) and Sandeep Mallick and three other persons. It was alleged in the application that in the course of investigation, it has 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 defrauded is to the extent of Rs.It was further alleged that Vijay Kumar 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. Inthe statement and details of the properties was given. It was further stated that O.P. No.1 and others have not invested in the properties from their own source of income. Request was made in the application for issuing anorder for attachment of properties. On 30.08.1996, the Judicial Commissioner passed anorder attaching the properties as per details given inim order of attachment was made absolute on 27.04.2001 and further order on 12.07.2001 was passed directing the C.B.I. to suggest names for appointment of receiver.9. Respondent NOs. 2, 3 and 4 to the application had filed criminal 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.was shown before the Judicial Commissioner. The Judicial Commissioner after noticing thepassed a detailed order dated 13.10.2004 making theorder as an absolute. Vide order dated 18.10.2004, 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. 1931 of 2004 and 694 of 2005 before the Jharkhand High Court. The Division Bench 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.of 2008 and Kamal Malik has filed Criminal Appeal Nos.

Court's reasoning:
19. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that no 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. Subhadramma & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (supra), i.e. in the present case, Ravi Sinha, the son 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 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. 39/1996, in which he has been convicted. Allegation was against him that the company was paid a sum of Rs. 5.90 lakhs and there wasof medicine. The appellant himself in his appeal No. 1561 of 2008 has filed a rejoinderIt 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 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 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 of learned counsel for the appellants.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 beenperusal 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 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.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 to. Thus, this submission cannot be accepted 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. Mr.Viswanathan has also submitted that even accepting the allegations 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. 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 Ordinance,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 absolute need no interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136.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,was given by the appellants which we have considered in detail as given by the Judicial Commissioner. Judicial Commissioner vide order 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.of 2008. After consideration of facts and evidences, the Judicial Commissioner was found it a fit case to make an attachment absolute. The High Court has confirmed the aforesaid order vide its judgment dated 21.06.2007. In so far as submissions of learned counsel for the appellants regarding Kashmere Gate property, which was purchased in 1955, learned counsel for the State has submitted that power to attach the property does not confine only to the properties acquired bymoney 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 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 bethe 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 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 present case.