Supreme Court quashes attachment order against deceased’s property: U. Subhadramma vs. State of A.P. (2016)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether property of a person who died during a criminal trial can be attached under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: U. Subhadramma & Ors. vs State of A.P. rep. by Pub. Prosecutor & Anr. Judgment Date: 4th July, 2016

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4th July, 2016
Citation: (2016) INSC 692
Judges: S. A. Bobde, J. and Amitava Roy, J.
Can the property of a person who dies during a criminal trial be attached by the state? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the limits of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. The Court held that the property of a person who died during trial cannot be attached under this ordinance, as the law requires a conviction for such action. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice S. A. Bobde and Justice Amitava Roy.

Case Background

The case revolves around U. Ramachandraiah, who was accused of misappropriating funds. He was charged under Sections 409, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly misappropriating ₹6,57,355.90 between July 31, 1987, and June 29, 1988. Ramachandraiah was Accused No. 1, and one Subbarayudu was Accused No. 2 in the case. During the trial, in October 1991, Ramachandraiah passed away. The trial court acquitted Subbarayudu in a judgment dated October 25, 1993, but noted that the evidence suggested Ramachandraiah was solely responsible for the misappropriation, although he could not be formally convicted due to his death. The legal representatives of Ramachandraiah, including his wife and children, are the appellants in this case. The State of Andhra Pradesh sought to attach the properties of Ramachandraiah under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted Accused No. 2, Subbarayudu, but observed that Ramachandraiah was responsible for the misappropriation. However, since Ramachandraiah had died, the court could not formally convict him. Subsequently, the State applied for attachment of Ramachandraiah’s properties under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. The District Judge ordered an interim attachment, which was later made absolute on October 1, 2002, after the High Court refused to interfere. The appellants then challenged the District Judge’s order in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was dismissed. The High Court held that Ramachandraiah alone had committed the offence and misappropriated the amount. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework in this case is the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Clause 3 of the ordinance allows the State Government to apply for attachment of property if there is reason to believe that a person has committed a scheduled offense. Specifically, clause 3(1) states:

“Where the [State Government or as the case may be, the Central Government] has reason to believe that any person has committed (whether after the commencement of this Ordinance or not) any scheduled offence the [State Government may, whether or not any Court has taken cognizance of the offence, authorise the making of an application to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the said person ordinarily resides or carries on business, for attachment, under this Ordinance, of the money or other property which the [State Government, or as the case may be, the Central Government] believes the said person to have procured by means of the offence, or if such money or property cannot for any reason be attached, of other property of the said person of value as nearly as may be equivalent to that of the aforesaid money or other property.”

Clause 4 empowers the District Judge to order an ad interim attachment. Clause 13 outlines the procedure when criminal proceedings conclude and states that the attachment order must be withdrawn if cognizance of the offense has not been taken or if there is an acquittal. However, the ordinance is silent on the effect of the abatement of prosecution due to the death of the accused.

The Supreme Court also considered the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle is critical in understanding the court’s decision.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, does not allow the attachment of property if the accused has not been validly convicted.
• They contended that since Ramachandraiah died during the trial, he could not be convicted, and therefore, no attachment order should have been issued.
• The appellants emphasized that the trial court’s finding that Ramachandraiah was responsible for the offense was void since it was made after his death.
• They argued that the attachment proceedings against a deceased person are not maintainable under the ordinance.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents (State) argued that the appellants should not be allowed to retain property obtained through illegal means.
• They asserted that the District Judge’s order of attachment was legal because the property was the subject of the charge sheet.
• The State contended that the trial court’s finding, even though made after Ramachandraiah’s death, was sufficient to justify the attachment.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the silence of the ordinance on the abatement of prosecution due to death should be interpreted to mean that attachment is not permissible, as the presumption of innocence continues even after death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the property of a person who has been accused of an offense, but who dies during the pendency of the criminal trial, can be attached in the hands of his legal representatives under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Punjab v. Jagbir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karan Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407 – This case was cited to highlight the importance of judging evidence based on probabilities, intrinsic worth, and the animus of witnesses.
• **(1955) 2 SCR 1140** – This case was cited to reiterate the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted.
• **(1963) 3 SCR 749** – This case was cited to reiterate the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted.
• **(2002) 7 SCC 317** – This case was cited to reiterate the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted.
• **(2005) 5 SCC 294** – This case was cited to reiterate the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted.
• **(2015) 3 SCC 724** – This case was cited to reiterate the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted.

Legal Provisions:

• Clause 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 – This clause empowers the State Government to apply for attachment of property if there is reason to believe that a person has committed a scheduled offense.
• Clause 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 – This clause empowers the District Judge to order an ad interim attachment.
• Clause 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 – This clause outlines the procedure when criminal proceedings conclude and states that the attachment order must be withdrawn if cognizance of the offense has not been taken or if there is an acquittal.
• Sections 409, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code – These are the sections under which Ramachandraiah was initially charged.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on the principle of presumption of innocence, citing cases like **(1955) 2 SCR 1140**, **(1963) 3 SCR 749**, **(2002) 7 SCC 317**, **(2005) 5 SCC 294**, and **(2015) 3 SCC 724** to emphasize that this presumption continues until conviction, and does not vaporize upon the death of an accused.
• The Court cited State of Punjab v. Jagbir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karan Singh, **AIR 1973 SC 2407** to highlight the importance of judging evidence based on probabilities, intrinsic worth, and the animus of witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly the presumption of innocence and the requirement of a valid conviction before any punitive action, such as attachment of property, can be taken. The court emphasized that the death of the accused does not negate this presumption, and the absence of a conviction means that the attachment order could not be sustained. The court also found the trial court’s finding after the death of the accused to be void and considered the entire proceedings against the deceased as illegal.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal principles and the interpretation of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual circumstances of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered that the trial court’s finding that Ramachandraiah was responsible for the offense was completely vitiated as null and void since Ramachandraiah had admittedly died on the date this finding was rendered. The Court held that “a prosecution cannot continue against a dead person.” Further, the Court observed that “a criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty. Such proceedings and the findings are contrary to the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence.” The court also noted that the District Judge committed a gross error of law in acting upon such a finding and treating Ramachandraiah as guilty while making the order of attachment. The court further stated, “If the law requires that the orders of attachment should be withdrawn upon acquittal it stands to reason that such orders must be withdrawn when the prosecution abates or cannot result in a conviction due to the death of the accused, whose property is attached.”

The Court rejected the argument that the property should be attached because it was the subject matter of the charge sheet, stating that a charge sheet alone is not sufficient for attachment without a conviction.

Key Takeaways

• The property of a person who dies during a criminal trial cannot be attached under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
• A valid conviction is necessary for attachment of property under this ordinance.
• The presumption of innocence continues even after the death of the accused.
• Proceedings against a deceased person are not maintainable in criminal law.
• Trial court’s finding after the death of the accused is void and cannot be used as a basis for attachment.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the lower courts, including the attachment order, and allowed the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, requires a valid conviction for the attachment of property. The death of the accused during trial results in the abatement of prosecution, and the presumption of innocence continues even after death. This judgment clarifies that attachment cannot be ordered in the absence of a conviction, even if the accused was allegedly involved in a scheduled offense. This is a significant clarification of the law, especially in cases where the accused dies during the trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in U. Subhadramma vs. State of A.P. is a significant clarification on the application of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. The court emphasized that the death of an accused during trial prevents a valid conviction, thereby barring the attachment of their property. This decision reinforces the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence and ensures that punitive actions are not taken without a proper legal basis.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944; Attachment of Property; Presumption of Innocence; Abatement of Prosecution; Section 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can the government seize property if someone dies during a criminal trial?
A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, the government cannot seize property under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, if the accused dies during the trial because a conviction is required for such action.

Q: What happens to a criminal case if the accused dies?
A: If the accused dies during a criminal trial, the case is considered abated, meaning it cannot proceed further. The court cannot find a deceased person guilty.

Q: What is the presumption of innocence?
A: The presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle that states that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. This principle continues even after the death of the accused.

Q: What is the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944?
A: The Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, is a law that allows the government to attach property believed to be obtained through illegal means. However, this action requires a valid conviction of the accused.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the attachment of property of a person who died during a criminal trial was illegal because there was no conviction, and the presumption of innocence continues even after death.