Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vitakula Satya Mani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 November, 2022
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Crl.P.No.1906 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner was gifted the land under a deed of gift executed in favour of the petitioner on 08.01.1979 and registered as document No.111/1979 by her grand-mother. Thereafter, a house was constructed on the said property. The husband of the petitioner, who was a Government servant, was accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income and C.C.No.50 of 2008 was filed before the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavri District. One of the allegations, against the husband of the petitioner, was that he had constructed a house in the land belonging to her by using the funds which had been obtained through corruption. The husband of the petitioner passed away on 27.12.2010 during the pendency of the case. Subsequently, the trial Court, by order dated 03.03.2011, had passed an order declaring that the case against the accused officer had abated.
2. After the order of abatement, the legal heirs of the husband of the petitioner applied for release of the assets and the documents, which had been seized by the investigating officer during the investigation and trial of the case against the deceased husband of the petitioner. The trial Court, by order dated 19.07.2019 in Crl.M.P.Nos.30 and 31 of 2018, had ordered release of the seized objects and documents, subject to the 2 RRR,J Crl.P.No.1906 of 2022 production of appropriate documentation demonstrating the identity of the legal heirs of the deceased husband of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner had, thereafter, approached the trial Court by way of Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2022 for release of the deed of gift given in her favour and Registered under document No.111/1979 from the trial Court. However, this application was rejected by an order dated 23.02.2022. The trial Court, after considering Gagan Bihari Das and Ors., Vs. The State of Orissa1, had held that the claim of the petitioner over the property can only be under Section 457 Cr.P.C., and as, the house built on the property, has been shown as one of the disproportionate assets acquired by her husband, the same cannot be released to her as she has not demonstrated that the property does not fall under the category of disproportionate assets acquired by her late husband. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court had not appreciated the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Gagan Bihari Das and Ors., Vs. The State of Orissa in its proper perspective. He would submit that the said judgment was an authority for the proposition that the Court would have to release the property either to the person from whom the property had 1 2002 SCC OnLine Ori 276 : 2002 Cri LJ 3415 3 RRR,J Crl.P.No.1906 of 2022 been attached or seized, or to the person who would be lawfully entitled for the possession of the property, after the same is demonstrated to the Court. This judgment cannot be understood to mean that the assets seized from the late husband of the petitioner would have to be remain with the custody of the Court even when the prosecution would not be able to either make any claim over the property or confiscate the property. He would submit that any order of confiscation can only follow, after adjudication as to whether the late husband of the petitioner had constructed the house by using the funds which are disproportionate to his income.
5. Smt. Gayatri Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the attachment over the property cannot be raised until the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the said property has not been acquired by using the funds disproportionate to the income of the late husband of the petitioner. She would further submit that in the absence of such a demonstration of fact, neither the property nor the document can be released to the petitioner.
6. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Gagan Bihari Das and Ors., Vs. The State of Orissa a public servant, who had been subjected to criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, had passed away while the trial of the case was going on. The question that came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa was, whether the property could be released to a legal heir of the deceased 4 RRR,J Crl.P.No.1906 of 2022 person under Section 452 Cr.P.C., when the enquiry or trial had not concluded, and no order regarding disposal of the property could be made.
7. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, following the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Bharat High Court in Tara Chand vs. The State2, had taken the view that provisions of Section 452 Cr.P.C., with regard to disposal of the property would not be applicable, as the trial had not concluded. Therefore, Section 457 (2) Cr.P.C., would be applicable.
8. After holding that Section 457 Cr.P.C., would be applicable, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa had also taken the view that the only way to determine the entitlement of the petitioner therein, is to make an enquiry as envisaged under Section 452 Cr.P.C.
9. In the present case, an enquiry under Section 457(2) Cr.P.C., as interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the aforesaid judgment, would mean that the property would have to be handed over to the person who would be entitled to the said property.
10. The persons entitled to the said property would be the legal heirs of the husband of the petitioner, even if it is assumed that the house has been built by using the funds obtained from the husband of the petitioner. It would therefore entail an enquiry by the trial Court to 2 AIR 1951 Madhya Bharat 154 = 1951 (52) Cri LJ 1476 5 RRR,J Crl.P.No.1906 of 2022 ascertain between the legal heirs of the late husband of the petitioner as to whether the house had been constructed by using the funds obtained from the husband of the petitioner, or whether the house has been constructed by the petitioner herself. The Court, thereafter, has to handover the possession of the document depending upon a decision in this regard. However, it would also to be open to the legal heirs of the husband of the petitioner to resolve the dispute between them and approach the trial Court to handover the document to the person acceptable to all the legal heirs.
11. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 23.02.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2022 in C.C.No.50 of 2008 by the trial Court and remanding the matter back to the trial Court for an appropriate decision and release of the document after a proper enquiry is conducted in the terms mentioned above.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
2nd November, 2022.
Js.
6 RRR,J Crl.P.No.1906 of 2022 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Crl.P.No.1906 of 2022 2nd November, 2022 Js.