Holding

The High Court was correctly held to lack power under Section 482 CrPC to review its own order, and the heirs may participate in the auction of the assets, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Summary

The accused, a government servant, was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment, imposed a fine, and ordered that four specified assets be auctioned with proceeds confiscated to the State. While the criminal appeal was pending, the appellant died and the High Court dismissed the appeal; the appellant's children then sought permission to deposit the auction amount in lieu of the sale. The High Court rejected the application, holding that Section 482 of the CrPC does not empower it to review its own order. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court was correct, emphasizing that the present market value of the properties is what matters and that the heirs may participate in the auction when it is held, and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can, under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, review its own order dismissing an application for deposit in lieu of auction of confiscated assets.
Whether the heirs of a deceased convict may be allowed to deposit money in place of the auction proceeds.
Whether the present value of the seized assets, rather than the value at the time of seizure, is the relevant consideration for confiscation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(1)(e), s. 5(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(2), s. 16

Subjects

corruptionpecuniary resourcesdisproportionate assetsSection 5Prevention of Corruption Actauction of confiscated propertyinherent powersSection 482 CrPCheirscriminal appeal

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 728

A N. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS.
~-
v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1627 of 2008)
OCTOBER 17, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Ss.5(1)(e) and 5(2): +-
Pecuniary resource disproportionate to known source of
c r
income - Possession of, by accused government servant -
Sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for
1 year; trial Court directed to sell by auction item Nos. 1 to 4 of
assets and sale proceeds therefrom to be confiscated to State r

~t
- During pendency of the appeal before High Court, convict
D died - Filing of application by children of the deceased for
grant of permission to deposit the appropriate amount in lieu
of auction of certain items of assets - Dismissed by High Court ....
holding that s. 482 Cr.PC. not empowered the Court to review y
its own order- Correctness of- Held: Correct - However; It is
E open to appellants to participate in the auction sale of the as-
sets in question - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1273 - S.482 - Inherent
power of High Court- Invoking of, to review its own judgment.
.. ~
.}

F Accused, a government servant was allegedly pos- }--

'¥ '"
sessing the pecuniary resources disproportionate to the I
r
known source of income. He was charged for commit-
ting the offence under Section 5 (1)(e) read with Section 5 I
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Trial Court ~

G found him guilty of committing the offence and sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, to pay t
a fine of Rs.20,0001- and directed that item No 1 to 4 of the l
~'
assets shall be sold in public auction and the sale pro- ""' -,.
ceeds s.hall be confiscated to the State. The accused pre-
H 728
N. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS. v. STATE 729
OF A.P.

""'Y" ferred criminal appeal. During pendency of the appeal A
before the High Court, the appellant died. Appeal was dis-
missed by ~he High Court. Appellants, children of the de-
ceased, filed an application praying for grant of permis-
sion to deposit the amount as considered appropriate in
lieu of the confiscation of Item Nos. 1 to 4 of the assets, B
which were directed to be sold in public auction. The High
Court dismissed the application holding that Section 482
--i
Cr.P.C. did not empower the Court to review its own judg-
ment by exercising inherent powers. Hence the present
·' appeal. c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
~
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has rightly noted that it is
the present value of the properties which is of relevance
and not the value of the assets at the relevant point of
D
time of seizure. [Para - 7] [732-A]
;. 1.2 It is open to the appellants to participate in the
'f auction for sale of the properties in question as and when
held. [Para - 7] [732-8]
,_ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E
No. 1627 of 2008
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Misc. Petition No. 24 7 of 2006 in Crl. Appeal No. 1524 of 1998 F
,,__I Sarvesh Bisaria and Anil Nag for the Appellant.
Altaf Fathima and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J 1. Leave granted.
=1'
l.J
..-·\: 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
-:i. learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dis-
missing the application filed by the appellants.
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
'jlll
j

A 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows; ·~

The appellants are the sons and daughters of the accused
~
N. Ramakrishnaiah in C.C. No.64of1992 on the file of the Prin-
cipal Special Judge, for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. He
was charged for the offence under Section 5 (1 )(e) read with
B Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 (in short
the 'Old Act') possessing the pecuniary resources dispropor-
tionate to the known sources of income. The accused worked -~
as Executive Engineer as on the date of search of his house
I
and other properties. Evidence was adduced and the Special ~-..,

c Judge found the accused guilty, convicted him for the above
mentioned offence and sentenced him to undergo simple im-
prisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in de- t-
fault to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The Spe-
cial Judge also directed that item No 1 to 4 of the assets shall
D be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds shall be confis-
cated to the State. The accused, being aggrieved by the con-
viction and the sentence imposed by the Special Judge pre-
ferred Criminal Appeal No.1524 of 1998. The High Court dis- "
y
missed the appeal. As noted above, during the pendency of the
E appeal before the High Court, the appellant died, therefore, the
sentence of imprisonment stood abated against the appellant.
Prayer before the High Court wo.:s that the appellants may
be permitted to deposit entire amount of Rs.6,37,850.92 on such
sum as r:nay be considered appropriate in lieu of the confisca-
F tion of Item Nos.1 to 4 of the assets possessed by the accused
in the case. It was pointed out that Item No.1 was a house prop- -tt
erty. The appellants had sentimental attachment to the proper-
ties. Stand of the State was that since Criminal Appeal was dis-
missed there was no scope for passing the order as the Court
G had become functus officio. The appellants' stand was that Sec-
tion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short \
'Cr.P.C.') permitted the course to be adopted. The High Court ,;+~
... .. -
,
did not find any substance in the plea and it was held that Sec- /

I-
tion 482 Cr.P.C. did not empower the Court to review its own ~

.
H judgment by exercising inherent powers.
N. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS. v. STATE 731
OF A.P.
~
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since A
the appellants are willing to deposit money there is no reason
as to why the High Court should not permit release of the prop-
erties in favour of the legal heir of deceased accused.
Undisputedly, when the offence was committed Section 5(2) of
the Old Act was in force which reads as follows: 8
-i "5(2)-Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
' seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
c
Provided that the Court may, for any special reasons
recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment
of less than one year."
5. The corresponding Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') reads as follows: D
J~

-f "Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be
not less than one year but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine."
E
6. According to the appellants in an appropriate case the
fine amount as imposed can be enhanced and the custodial
sentence can be reduced. We need not go into that question
because Section 16 of the Act reads as follows:

"'1 "Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine- Where F
a sentence of fine is imposed under sub-section (2) of
Section 13 or Section 14, the court fixing the amount of
the fine shall take into consideration the amount or the
value of the property, if any, which the accused person has
obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction G
~ __., ·+-
r is for an offence referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1)
.. of section 13, the pecuniaty resources or property referred
to in that clause for which the accused person is unable to
account satisfactorily."
H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 7. The High Court has rightly noted that it is the present
value of the properties which is of relevance and not the value
of the assets at the relevant point of time of seizure. We find no
substance in the plea of the appellants as canvassed in this
appeal. It is open to the appellants to particjpate in the auction
B for sale of the properties in question as and when held.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.