Court Sets Aside Confiscation Due to Procedural Errors, Highlights Need for Mandatory Attachment in Corruption Cases
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench has set aside a trial court's order to confiscate properties in a high-profile corruption case, underscoring procedural lapses and the necessity for a robust legal framework to address corruption. The case involved V. Thangavel, a former Sub Registrar, and his wife, who were accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income.
The appellants, who claimed to be bona fide purchasers of the properties in question, challenged the confiscation order issued by the Special Judge for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli. The trial court had ordered confiscation under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without a prior attachment as per the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944.
Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that the statutory framework under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, requires following specific procedures for property attachment and confiscation. The court emphasized that bypassing these procedures violates legal protocols and principles of natural justice, especially when third-party purchasers are involved.
The judgment highlighted systemic failures, including delays in investigation and the registration of the First Information Report (FIR), allowing the accused to transfer properties to third parties during the pendency of the case. This, the court noted, reflects a broader issue within the legal enforcement framework, necessitating urgent reforms.
The court urged legislative amendments to make the attachment of properties suspected of being acquired through corrupt means mandatory, similar to provisions in other legislation like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The ruling stressed that without such measures, corrupt practices would continue to undermine societal integrity.
In response to the court's observations, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) issued a circular mandating that investigating officers explore the applicability of attachment provisions in all corruption cases. However, the court noted that these measures alone are insufficient without statutory amendments to enforce mandatory attachment.
The ruling not only sets a precedent for the treatment of property in corruption cases but also calls for a comprehensive review of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to ensure it effectively deters corrupt activities and safeguards public resources.
Bottom Line :
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Confiscation of properties under Section 452 CrPC, without prior attachment under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, is not sustainable in proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Special statutory mechanism under Section 5(6) and Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has to be followed - Confiscation order passed without notice to third party purchasers also violates principles of natural justice.
Statutory provision(s):
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 5(6), 13(1)(e), 13(2), 18A
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 Section 3
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 452
