Supreme Court of India
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 1041
- Decided
- 10 December 2015
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ANIL R DAVE
Holding
The Orissa and Bihar Special Courts Acts are constitutionally valid and their declaration, confiscation and appeal provisions do not violate Articles 14, 20 or 21, but Rule 12 of the Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 is ultra vires the Bihar Act.
Summary
The petitioners, senior public servants accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the constitutionality of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, which created special courts for speedy trial and provided for interim confiscation of property. Their objections included that the Acts were introduced as money bills violating Art.199, that the State lacked power under Art.247 to create such courts, that the declaration and confiscation provisions were vague, arbitrary and violative of Arts.14, 20(1), 20(3), 21 and 300A, and that certain procedural rules (Rule 12 of the Bihar Rules) were ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that both Acts are constitutionally valid, not barred by Art.199 or Art.247, and that their declaration, confiscation, appeal and stay provisions satisfy the requirements of Articles 14, 20 and 21. However, it declared Rule 12 of the Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 ultra vires the Bihar Act. Consequently, the appeals from the Orissa High Court were dismissed, while the appeals from the Patna High Court were allowed to the extent indicated.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 as a money bill under Article 199 of the Constitution
- Whether the State legislature can establish special courts under Article 247
- Whether Sections 5 and 6 of the Acts, dealing with declaration of cases, are vague or arbitrary and violate Article 14 or Article 20(1)
- Whether the confiscation provisions (Sections 13‑16) infringe Articles 14, 20(1), 20(3), 21 or 300A
- Whether the procedure for confiscation violates the right against self‑incrimination under Article 20(3)
- Whether the appeal and stay provisions (Section 17 and Section 18) are constitutionally valid
- Whether Rule 12 of the Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 prescribing a summary procedure is ultra vires the Bihar Act
- Whether there is repugnancy between the Acts and the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 and other central statutes
Legislation cited
- Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 18, s. 19, s. 5, s. 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 18, s. 19, s. 5, s. 6
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(e)
- Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 (as amended 2009)
Subjects
corruptionspecial courtsconfiscation of propertyconstitutional validityArticle 14Article 20Article 21money billrepugnancyclassificationprocedural fairness
Judgment
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 1037
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6448-6452 of 2011)
B
DECEMBER 10, 2015
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - Constitutionality of-
Accumulation of extensive properties disproportionate to the
known sources of income by persons who had held or are C
holding high political and public offices - Special Courts
under the Act for speedy trial for certain class of offences
and for confiscation of properties - Held: The Orissa Special
Courts Act is not hit by Art. 199 of the Constitution -
Constitution of/ndia-Art.199. D
Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - Special Courts
under - Establishment of - Held: The establishment of
Special Courts under the Orissa Special Courts Act is not
violative ofArt. 247 of the Constitution- Constitution of India- E
Art. 247.
Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 - Special Courts
under - Establishment of - Held: The establishment of
Special Courts under the Bihar Special Courts Act is not
violative ofArt. 247 of the Constitution- Constitution of India - F
Art. 247.
Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - ss. 5 and 6 -
Provisions pertaining to declaration and effect thereof- Held:
The provisions pertaining to declaration and effect of
declaration as contained in ss.5 and 6 of the Orissa Special G
Courts Act, and the Bihar Special Courts Act, are
constitutionally valid as they do not suffer from any
unreasonableness or vagueness- Bihar Special Courts Act,
2009.
H
1037
.1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - Chapter Ill -
Confiscation ofproperty or money or both- Held: Chapter 111 ·
of the both the Acts, namely, Orissa Special Courts Act and
Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, providing for confiscation of
property or money or both neither violates Article 14 nor
B Article 20(1) nor Article 21 of the Constitution - Constitution
of India -Arts. 14, 20(1) and 21.
Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 - Chapter Ill -
Confiscation of property or money or both - Held: Chapter Ill
of the both the Acts, namely, Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006
C and Bihar Special Courts Act, providing for confiscation of
property or money or both neither violates Article 14 nor
Article 20( 1) nor Article 21 of the Constitution - Constitution
of India-Arts. 14, 20(1) and 21.
0 Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - Procedure for
confiscation and proceedings before the Authorised Officer
- Held: The procedure provided for confiscation and the
proceedings before the Authorised Officer do not cause any
discomfort either to Article 14 or to Article 20(3) of the
E Constitution - Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 - Constitution
oflndia-Arts. 14 and 20(3).
Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - Provision relating to
appeal - Held: The provision relating to appeal in the Act is
treated as constitutional on the basis of reasoning that the
F power subsists with the High Court to extend the order of stay
on being satisfied.
Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 - Provision relating to
appeal - Held: The provision relating to appeal in the Act is
treated as constitutional on the basis of reasoning that the
G power subsists with the High Court to extend the order of stay
on being satisfied.
Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - s.18(1), proviso -
Held: The proviso to s.18(1) of the Orissa Special Courts Act
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1039
does not fall foul of Art.21 of the Constitution - Constitution A
oflndia -Art. 21.
Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 - s.19 - Held: The
provisions contained in s. 19 pertaining to refund of
confiscated money or property does not suffer from any kind
of unconstitutionality. B
Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 - r.12(a) and (f) -
Held: Sub-rules (a) and (f) of r.12 of the BiharSpecial Court
Rules being violative of the language employed in the Bihar
Special Courts Act are ultra vires-Anything contained therein c
pertaining to the summary procedure is also declared as ultra
vires the Bihar Special Courts·Act - Bihar Special Courts
Act, 2009.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
D
HELD:1. Corruption, a 'noun' when assumes all the
characteristics of a 'verb', becomes self-infective and
also develops resistance to antibiotics. In such a
situation the disguised protagonist never puts a
Hamletian question - "to be or not to be" - but marches E
ahead with perverted proclivity - sans concern, sans
care for collective interest, and irrefragably without
conscience. In a way, corruption becomes a national
economic terror. This social calamity warrants a different
control and hence, the legislature comes up with special
legislation with stringent provisions. [Para 1][1056-B-D] F
2. The provisions in both the Acts, namely, Orissa
Special Courts Act, 2006 and Bihar Special Courts Act,
2009, are almost similar. The State legislature in the State
of Orissa keeping in view the accumulation of extensive G
properties disproportionate to the known sources of
income by persons who had held or are holding high
political and public offices, thought it appropriate to
provide special courts for speedy trial for certain class
H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A of offences and for confiscation of properties involved;
and accordingly, enacted the Orissa Act which was
passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly that got the
assent of the President of India. [Para 5] [1057-D-G]
3.1. The Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 which
8 specifically deals with offences under Section 13(1)(e)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and provides
for Special Courts for the trial of the said offences has
got the assent of the President. It is to be understood
that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the
C State had the authority to appoint special Judges in
respect of all the offences. Presently, one part of the
offence has been carved out and after obtaining assent
Special Courts have been established. In view of the fact
situation, it does not violate Article 247 of the
D Constitution. That apart, the language employed in Article
247 does not take away the jurisdiction of the State
legislature for constitution of courts. [Para 43] [1090-G-
H; 1091-A-B]
E 3.2. The purpose of Article 247, which commences
with a non-obstante clause, is to confer power on the
Parliament to create additional courts for the better
administration of a particular Union law, but it cannot be
said that the State cannot make laws for adjudication
F and administration ofjustice in respect of a parliamentary
legislation more so, when initially power was conferred
under Section 3 of the 1988 Act and assent has been
accorded for establishment of Special Courts for
adjudication of the offence. Section 3 of the 1988 Act
G empowers the State Government to constitute special
courts and when a category of offence has been
segregated and for the said purpose the Orissa Act has
been enacted and assent has been taken, the power to
constitute special courts cannot be found to be
H fallacious. [Paras 45 and 48] [1094-B-C; 1093-A-B]
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1041
4. The issue in the instant case is that the State. A
Government had no"t complied with the requisite
procedure for obtaining the as!;ent of the President. The
criticism advanced by the appellants is that in the letter
written by the State Government to the competent
authority for obtaining assent only certain provisions of B
the Orissa Act were mentioned but there is no reference
to other provisions and certain other legislations, which
also·cover the same field. However, on a perusal of the
aforesaid letter, it is demonstrable that the State
Government had sought assent of the President in · C
respect of certain provisions of the 1988 Act, the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944. On a perusal of the
communication and the .finding recorded by the High
Court and keeping in view the purpose of D
communication and taking note of the fact that the entire
Bill was sent to the President for obtaining assent, it can
safely be concluded that the President was apprised of
the reason when the assent was sought. The assent has
been given in general terms so as to be effective for alt E
purposes. It cannot be said that the general assent by
the President was not obtained. Thus, the provisions of
the Orissa Act are definitely not repugnant to the 1988
Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. [Paras 59 and F
66] [1100-E-F; 1108-G; 1109-B·D]
5.1. It was argued that that the persons holding
"high public or political office" are being put in a different
class to face a trial in a different court under a different
procedure facing different consequences, which is G
arbitrary and further the provision suffers from serious
vagueness. However, the submission of the appellants
that the words "high public or political office" not being
defined, creates a dent in the provision, cannot be
A
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A .accepted. The said words convey a category of public
servants which is well understood and there is no room
for arbitrariness. [Paras 99, 110] [1129-0; 1137-G]
5.2. The holders of high post or high public office
do definitely enjoy a distinguished position in contrast
8 to other categories of officers or post holders. They form
a separate class. The legislature, regard being had to
the position the public servant holds, has put them in a
different class. There is a manifest reason that sustains
the said classification. The court cannot adopt an attitude
C to scrutinize a provision with mathematical exactitude.
A pedantic approach in this regard cannot be visualized.
[Para 114) [1141-E, G]
6.1. With regard to the classification made by the
D legislature in respect of the accused persons facing trial
under .Section 13(a) to (d) and the a.ccused persons
under Section 13(1 )(e), it is urged by the appellants that
there is no intelligible differentia for making such·a
classification qua the offence and moreover by adopting
E a rigorous procedure. However, the legislative policy
behind establishment of Special Courts for trial of
accused involved in the offence under Section 13(1)(e)
of the 1988 Act in respect of certain categories of accused
is absolutely impeccable and it is saved from the vice of
F Article 14 of the Constitution. The offences under Section
13(1) (a) to (d) in a broad way can be called incident
specific or situation specific whereas the offence under
Section 13(1)(e) is period specific and it is not incident
specific. There can be different check periods. [Paras
G 111, 114 and 123) [1137-H; 1149-E; 1141-C]
6.2. There is a difference, a demonstrable one,
between the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the rest of the
offences enumerated in Section 13. Section 13(1)(e)
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1043
targets the persons who have disproportionate assets A
to their known sources of income. This conceptually is
a period offence, for it is not incident specific as such. It
does not require proof of corruption in specific acts, but
has reference to assets accumulated and known sources
of income in a particular period. The test applicable and B
proof required is different. That apart, in the context of
the present Orissa Act it is associated with high public
office or with political office which are occupied by
people who control the essential dynamics of power
which can be a useful weapon to amass wealth adopting C
illegal means. In such a situation, the argument that they .
being put in a different class and tried in a separate
special court solely because the alleged offence, if
nothing else, is self-defeating one. The submission that
there is a sub-classification does not remotely touch the D
boundaries of Article 14; and certainly does not encroach 1
thereon to invite its wrath of the equality clause. [Para
120] [1147-D-G]
6.3. The controversy can be looked from another
angle. The special courts have been established on the E
basis of the law enacted by the State Legislature after
obtaining the presidential assent. The legislature has
spelt out a policy for the purpose of establishing the
Special Courts. It relates to an.offence of special kind.
The legislative policy behind establishment of Special F
Courts for trial of accused involved in the offence under
Section 13(1){e) of the 1988 Act in respect of certain
categories of accused is absolutely impeccable and it is
saved from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution.
[Paras 121, 123] [1147-H; 1149-E] G
7. The next submission advanced by the appellants
pertains to the issue that the corruption is an all India
phenomenon and persons in other States are
prosecuted under the 1988 Act, whereas in the State of H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A Odisha, they are tried in a more rigorous manner. It is
submitted that the same brings in inequality which
causes discomfort to Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, Article 14 comes into play where equals are
treated as unequals. The persons holding high public
B or political office in the State of Odis ha are· governed by
the Orissa Act. The State legislature has passed the
Orissa Act having regard to the obtaining situation in the
State as the objects and reasons of the said Act do reflect.
The legislature in its wisdom has enacted the law. The
C persons who are functioning in certain other States may
be required to face trial under the 1988 Act, but on that
score there can be no violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The scale suggested, cannot be the scale
to judge. A legislation passed by one State legislature
D cannot be equated with the legislation passed by another
State legislature. Nor can its validity be tested on that
foundation. [Para 124] [1149-F-H; 1150-A·D]
8.1. Further, challenge was made relating to the
grievance which is fundamentally twin in nature. First,
E the appellants who were facing the trial before the Special
Judge under the 1988 Act, their cases being transferred,
are being compelled to be tried under the Orissa Act as
a consequence of which they are constrained to face
rigourism of confiscati.on as an interim punishment
F which was not in existence and second, the provisions
pertaining to confiscation cause double jeopardy. It is
urged that the provisions violate Article 14, 20(2) and 21
of the Constitution. Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the
OrissaAct occur in Chapter Ill oftheOrissaActthatdeals
G with confiscation of property. In the case at hand, the
entire proceeding is meant to arrive at the conclusion
whether on the basis of the application preferred by the
Public Prosecutor and the material brought on record,
the whole or any other money or some of the property in
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1045
question have been acquired illegally and further any A
money or property or both have been acquired by the
means of the offence. After arriving at the said
conclusion, the· order of confiscation is passed. The
order of confiscation is subject to appeal under Section
17 of the Orissa Act. That apart, it is provided under B
Section 19 where an order of confiscation made under
·. Section 15 is modified or annulled by the High Court in
appeal or the where the person affected is acquitted by
the special court, the money or property or both shall be
returned to the person affected. Thus, it is basically a C
confiscation which is interim in nature. Therefore, itis
not a punishment as envisaged in law and -hence, it is
difficult to accept the submission that it is a pre-trial
punishment. Confiscation is not a punishment and,
therefore, Article 20(1) is not attracted. What is prohibited D
under Article 20(1) is imposition of greater punishment
that might have been imposed and prohibition of a
conviction of any person for violation of law at the time
of commission of the act. Confiscation being not a
· punishment does not come in either of the categories. E
Thus viewed, the property of an accused facing trial
under the 1988 Act could be attached and there can be
administration by third party of the said property and
eventual forfeiture after conviction. [Paras 126, 137, 138
and 142] [1151-C-E; 1168-G-H; 1169-A-B, E; 1173-F-G] F
8.2. The legislature has thought it proper to change
the nature and character of the interim measure. The
property obtained by ill-gotten gains, if prima faciefound
to be such by the authorised officer, is to be confiscated.
An accused has no vested right as regards the interim G
measure. He is not protected by any constitutional right
to advance the plea that he cannot be made liable to face
confiscation proceedings of the property which has
been accumulated by illegal means. That being the litmus
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A test, the filament of reasoning has to rest in favour of
confiscation and not against it. Therefore, the provision
does not violate any constitutional assurance. In view
of the scheme of the Orissa Act, there can be no shadow
of doubt that there is ample guidance in the procedure
B for confiscation. It is not a proceeding where on the basis
of launching of prosecution, the properties are
confiscated. Therefore, the proceedings relating to
confiscation cannot be regarded as violative of article
14 because conferment of unchecked power or lack of
C guidance. [Paras 143, 144) [1174-C-E; 1175-D]
8.3.As the scheme of the Orissa Special Courts Act,
2006 would show, the confiscation is interim in nature. It
does not assume the character of finality. Same is the
position in Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009. The accused
D is entitled to get return ofthe property or money in case
he succeeds in appeal before the High Court against the
order passed by the authorized officer or in the ultimate
eventuality when the order of acquittal is recorded. [Para
145] [1175-G-H; 1176-A]
E
9. The Authorised Officer is a judicial officer and he
is required to deal with material for the limited purpose
of confiscation. That apart, there is a statutory protection
that the material produced before the Authorised Officer
F shall not be used during trial. It is graphically clear that
the materials produced before the authorised officer are
not to be looked into during trial, and the trial is to proceed
in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and
subject to the provisions of the 1988 act as long as there
G is no inconsistency. The trial Judge is a senior judicial
officer and has a trained judicial mind. If something is
not to be looked into, it shall by no means be looked
into. The constitutional protection under Article 20(3) is
in no way affected. [Para 151] [1175-E·G]
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 104 7
10. Under the scheme of the Orissa Act, the A
confiscation does not take place immediately on lodging
.of an FIR. The property is confiscated by way of an interim
measure by taking recourse to law which has been held
.to be constitutionally valid. A person cannot be allowed
to indulge in corruption and conceive of protection to B
his dwelling house after a finding is recorded in the
proceeding for confiscation that it is constructed or
purchased by way of corrupt means. The person
concerned can satisfy the authorised officer or in appeal
thatth.e dwelling house where he is residing is acquired C
from his known sources of income. [Para 155] [1183-F-
H; 1184-A, C]
11. It is to be remembered that the proceeding is.
initiated for confiscation in respect of the property
acquired by the offence as described under the Act. It is D
done on the basis of certain material brought on record.
Ultimately the proceedings may not be successful but if
it is not possible to return the property the State cannot
be asked to compensate more than what the legislature
has thought to be appropriate. It cannot be equated with E
acquisition. The entire proceeding is initiated regard
being had to the rampant corruption at high places in
the present day society. Therefore, the submissio~ that .·
there has to be adequate compensation would be
against the larger public interest. Thus understood, the F
challenge to the provision on the backdrop of Article
300Ahas to be treated as unacceptable. [Para 158] [1187-
B-E]
12. Both the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and G
the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 are almost similar and,
the analysis made by this Court as regards the Orissa
·Special Courts Act, 2006 will apply to the Bihar Special
Courts Act, 2009. [Para 159] [1187-F]
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 13. However, Rule 12 of the Bihar Special Court
Rules, 2010 provides for Special Courts to follow
summary procedure. When the Bihar Act provides to
follow the warrant procedure prescribed by the Code for
trial of cases before a Magistrate, the 2010 Rules could
B not have prescribed for summary procedure. The rules
have to be in accord with the Act. The rules can
supplement the provisions of the Act but decidedly they
cannot supplant the same. Therefore, part of Rule 12
which lays down that the Special Judge shall follow
C summary procedure, is ultra vires the Bihar Special
Courts Act, 2009. [Paras 160, 161] [1187-H; 1188-D-E]
Special Reference No. 1of 1964 AIR 1965 SC
745: 1965 SCR 413-distinguished.
D Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another (2014) 11 sec 415 - held,
applicable.
Kishore Chandra Patel v. State of Orissa, 1993
(76) CLT 720; Delhi Administration v. II. C. Shukla
E (1980) Supp. sec 249 : 1980 SCR 500;
S. Satyapal Reddyv. Govt. ofA.P &Ors. (1994)4
SCC 391; M.P Shikshak Congress & Ors. v. R.PF.
Commissioner, Jabalpur & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC
396: 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 198; P Venugopal v.
F Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 1 : 2008 (8)
SCR 1; M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India AIR
(1979) SC 898 : 1979 (3) SCR 254; Hoechst
Pharmaceuticals v. State of Bihar AIR (1983) SC
1019 : 1983 (3) SCR 130; State of Punjab v.
G Satyapal AIR (1969) SC 903 : 1969 SCR 478;
Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd v. Union oflndia AIR (1961)
SC 954: 1962 SCR 44; Mano} Narula v. Union of
India (2014) 9 sec 1 : 2014 (9) scR 965;
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1049
Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642 : 2013 (4) A
SCR 767; Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8
SCC 682: 2014 (6) SCR 873; Raja Ram Pal v.
Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others (2007) 3
SCC 184 : 2007 (1) SCR 317; Madras Bar
Association v. Union of India and another (2014) B
10 SCC 1; 0. N. Mohindroo v. The Bar Council of
Delhi & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 888: 1968 SCR 709;
Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra
(2005) 2 SCC 591 : 2005 (1) SCR 223; the Special
Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380 : 1979 (2) C
SCR 476; Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. &
Anotherv. State of Biharand Others 1983 (4) SCC
45 : 1983 (3) SCR 130; Deep Chand v. The State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 822;
Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh D
& Ors. (1956) SCR 393; Engineering Kamgar
Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and Another
(2004) 6 sec 36: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 301; M.P.
AIT Permit Owners Association and Another v.
State of M.P. (2004) 1 SCC 320: 2003 (6) Suppl. E
SCR 331; Govt. of A.P. and Another v. J. B.
Educational Society and Another (2005) 3 SCC
212 : 2005 (2) SCR 302; Dharappa v. Bijapur
Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007)
9 SCC 109: 2007 (5) SCR 729; Sitaram &Bros. F
v. State of Rajasthan 1995 (1) SCC 257: 1994
(4) Suppl. SCR 278; EID Parry(/) Ltd. v. G Omkar
Murthy and Others (2001) 4 SCC 68 : 2001 (2)
SCR 807; Saurashtra Oil Mills Assn. v. State of
Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 202:. 2002 (1) SCR 1099; G
/magic Creative (P) Ltd. v. CCT (2008) 2 SCC
614: 2008 (1) SCR 457; Hindustan Times v. State
of U.P. (2003) 1 sec 591 : 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR
27; Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC
182: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 555; P.N. Krishna Lal
v. Govt. of Kera/a 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 187: 1994
(5) Suppl. SCR 526; Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur
v.Malwinder Singh (1985) 3 SCC 661; Rajiv Sarin
B and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others
(2011) 8 SCC 708; Supreme CourtAdvocates-on-
Record Association arid Another v. Union
of India 2015 (11) SCALE 1; Sanjeev Coke
Manufacturing Company v. Mis Bharat Coking
C Coal Limited andAnother19831SCC147: 1983
(1) SCR 1000; Reserve Bank oflndia v. Peerless
General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. AIR
1987 SC 1023: 1987 (2) SCR 1; Union of India
v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De
D Gama 1990 AIR 981 : 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 336;
R.L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
AIR 1964 SC 1230 : 1964 SCR 784; TATA
Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar and Another (2000) 5 SCC 346 : 2000 (3)
E SCR 219; Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal
Sheth (1977) 4 sec 193 : 1978 (1) scR 423;
Maharaj Singh v. State of.UP. (1977) 1 SCC 155 :
1977 (1) SCR 1072; Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India (2015) 5 sec 1 : 2015 (5) SCR 963; OTC v.
F Mazdoor Congress 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 :
1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 142; Suresh Kumar
Koushalv. Naz Foundation (2014) 1SCC1 : 2013
(17) SCR 116; Calcutta Gujarati Education
Society v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation (2003)
G 10 SCC 533 : 2003 (i) Suppl. SCR 915; Hotel
Balaji and Others v. State of A.P. and Others 1993
Supp (4) sec 536: 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 182;
J. K. Steel Ltd. v. Unionof/ndiaAIR 1970SC1173:
1969 SCR 481; P. Na/lama/ v. Inspector of Police
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR ·1051
(1999) 6 sec 559 : 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 135; A
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R.
Tendolkar and others AIR 1958 SC 538 : 1959
SCR 279; Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. v.
Union of India and Another (2008) 5 SCC 287 :
2008 (6) SCR 566; Rehman Shagoo v. State of B
Jammuand Kashmir AIR 1960SC1: 1960 SCR
680; C. I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1960
SC 548: 1960 SCR 592; Kedar Nath Bajoria v.
The State of West Bengal (1954) SCR 30; State
of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) SCR C
284; Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of
Saurashtra (1952) SCR 435; J. Jaya Lalitha v.
Union of India (1999) 5SCC138: 1999 (3) SCR
653; Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union
Territory of Delhi AIR 1961 SC 1602 : 1962 SCR D
125; The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C.
Mandawar AIR 1954 SC 493 : 1955 SCR 158;
Prabhakaran Nairv. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
AIR 1987 SC 2117 : 1988 (1) SCR 1; Maqbool
Hussain v. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325: E
1953 SCR 730; State of West Bengal v. S.K.
Ghosh 1963 (2) SCR 111; Divisional Forest
Officer and another v. G. II. Sudhakar Rao and
. others (1985) 4 SCC 573: 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR
680; Director of Enforcement v. M.C. T.M. F
Corporation Pvt. Ltd and Others (1996) 2 SCC
471 : 1996 (1) SCR 215; Biswanath Bhattacharya
v. Union oflndia & others(2014) 4 SCC 392: 2014
(1) SCR 885; State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
v. CH Gandhi (2013) 5 sec 111 : 2013 (2) G
SCR 20; Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director
and others. (1989) 3 SCC 448 : 1989 (3) SCR
428; K. Satwant Singhv. State of Punjab AIR 1960
SC 266 : 1960 SCR 89; Maya Rani Punj v. CIT
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A (1969) 1 SCC 445; Tiwari Kanhaiyalal v. CIT
(1975) 4 SCC 101 : 1975 (3) SCR 927; Kera/a
State Financial Enterprises Ltd. v. Official
Liquidator, High Court of Kera/a (2006) 10 SCC
709 : 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 855; State of Himacha/
B Pradesh v. Tarsem Singhand others AIR 2001 SC
3431 : 2001 (2) Suppl. seR 545; Sulochana
Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal
Transport and others (2010) 8 sec 467 : 2010
(9) SCR 476; Dayal Singh v. State of Uttarancha/
c (2012) 8 SCC 263 : 2012 (1 O) SCR 157; Rattiram
v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 : 2012 (3)
SCR 496; M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra AIR
1954 SC 300: 1954 SCR 1077 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
D
1993 (76) CLT 720 referred to Para 14
1980 SCR 500 referred to Para 14
(1994) 4 sec 391 referred to Para 14
E 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 198 referred to Para 14
2008 (8) SCR 1 referred to Para 14
1979 (3) SCR 254 referred to Para 14
1983 (3) SeR 130 referred to Para 14
F
1969 SCR 478 referred to Para 14
1962 SCR 44 referred to Para 14
2014 (9) SCR 965 referred to Para 27
2013 (4) SCR 767 referred to Para 28
G
2014 (6) SCR 873 referred to Para 29
1965 seR 413 distinguished Para 35
2007 (1) SCR 317 referred to Para 36
H
YOGENDRAKUMARJAISWALETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1053
(2014) 11sec415 held applicable Para 37 A
(2014) 10 sec 1 referred to Para 41
1968 .SCR 709 referred to Para 43
2005 (1) SCR 223 referred to Para 43
B
1979 (2) SCR 476 referred to Para 44
1983 (3) SCR 130 referred to Para 50
(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 822 referred to Para 50
(1956) SCR 393 referred to Para 50 c
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 301 referred to Para 52
2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 331 referred to Para 53
2005 (2) SCR 302 referred to Para 54
2007 (5) SCR 729 referred to Para 55 D
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 278 referred to Para 56
2001 (2) SCR 807 referred to Para 57
2002 (1) SCR 1099 referred to Para 57
2008 (1) SCR 457
.
referred to Para 57
E
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 27 referred to Para 58
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 555 referred to Para 59
1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 526 referred to Para 61 F
(1985) 3 sec 661 referred to Para 62
(2011) 8 sec 108 referred to Para 63
2015 (11) SCALE 1 referred to Para 83
G
1983 (1) SCR 1000 referred to Para 84
1987 (2) SCR 1 referred to Para 86
1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to Para 87
1964 SCR 784 referred to Para 88 H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 2000 (3) SCR 219 referred to Para 89
1978 (1) SCR 423 referred to Para 91
1977 (1) SCR 1072 referred to Para.92
2015 (5) SCR 963 referred to Para 93
B
1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 142 referred to Para 94
2013 (17) SCR 116 referred to Para 95
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 915 referred to Para 96
c 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 182 referred to Para 100
1969 SCR 481 referred to Para 100
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 135 referred to Para 114
1959 SCR279 referred to Para 115
D 2008 (6) SCR 566 referred to Para 116
1960 SCR 680 referred to Para 117
1960 SCR 592 referred to Para 118
(1954) SCR 30 referred to Para 121
E
(1952) SCR 284 referred to Para 121
(1952) SCR 435 referred to Para 121
1999 (3) SCR 653 referred to Para 122
F 1962 SCR 125 referred to Para 122
1955 SCR 158 referred to Para 124
1988 (1) SCR 1 referred to Para 125
1953 SCR 730 referred to Para 131
G
1963 (2) SCR 111 referred to Para 132
1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 680 ·referred to Para 134
1996 (1) SCR 215 referred to Para 135
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1055
2014 (1) SCR 885 referred to Para 136 A
2013 (2) SCR 20 referred to Para 140
1989 (3) SCR 428 referred to Para 140
1960 SCR 89 referred to Para 140
B
(1969) 1 sec 445 referred to Para 141
1975 (3) SCR 927 referred to Para 141
2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 855 referred to Para 142
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 545 referred to Para 146 c
2010 (9) SCR 476 referred to Para 147
2012 (10) SCR 157 referred to Para 148
2012 (3) SCR 496 referred to Para 149
1954 SCR 1077 referred to Para 151 D
CIVIL I CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil
Appeal Nos. 6448-6452 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2011 of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC Nos. 10735, 10455, E
10456, 10692 & 10983 of 2010
WITH
C. A. No. 6460 of 2011
Crl.A. Nos. 360-378, 385-386, 387, 388, 379-384, 389, F
390, 1371 and 1372 of 2012
Crl.A. Nos.1678, 1679and 1680of2015 ..
Gaurav Agrawal, M. P. Jha, Harshvardhan Jha,
Ms. Yugandhra Jha, Rak Ekbal Roy, Vinoo Bhagat, Sibo G
Sankar Mishra, Anirudh, Mukul Kumar, Ajay Sharma, Anupam
Lal Das, Suchit Mohanty, Ashok Mathur, Prashant Shukla,
Pashupathi Nath Razdan,Advs. fortheAppelle),nt.
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A Manish Kumar, Rashmi Srivastava, (For Gopal Singh),
Santosh Mishra, Param Mishra, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar, Shibashish Misra, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, C. D.
Singh,Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Corruption, a 'noun' when assumes
all the characteristics of a 'verb', becomes self-infective and
also develops resistance to antibiotics. In such a situation
the disguised protagonist never puts a Hamletian question -
c "to be or not to be" - but marches ahead with perverted
proclivity- sans concern, sans care for collective interest,
and irrefragably without conscience. In a way, corruption
becomes a national economic terror. This social calamity
warrants a different control and hence, the legislature comes
0 up with special legislation with stringent provisions. The law
having been enacted, there is a challenge to the constitutionality
of the provisions. That is the subject matter of these appeals,
for the judgments rendered by the High Courts of Orissa
and Patna are under assail herein.
E 2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 4558 of 2012, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3084
of 2013 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3085 of
2013.
3. In this batch of appeals, by special leave, we are called
F upon to deal with the legal substantiality of the judgments
rendered by the High Court of Judicature of Orissa at Cuttack
and the High Court of Judicature at Patna upholding the
constitutional validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006
G (for brevity, "the Orissa Act") which has been assented to by
the President of India on 19.9.2007 and published in
Extraordinary Orissa Gazette on 15.10.2007; and the Bihar
Special Courts Act, 2009 (for short, "the Bihar Act"),
respectively. We are also required to consider the validity of
an aspect of Bihar Special Court Rules, 201 O (for short, "the
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1057
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
201 ORules"). May it be stated though the High Court has noted A
the same and made certain observations yet has not
proceeded to deal with the validity of the Rule in question.
4. As the factual matrix in all the cases has a common
backdrop, we shall refer to the facts in brief. In all the cases,
8
the appellants are/were public servants and facing criminal
cases for various offences including the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act'),
particularly Section 13(1 )(e) of the 1988Act on the allegation
that they were having property disproportionate to their known C
sources of income. The grievance of appellants in these
· appeals relate to the impact and effect of the legislations
brought during the pend ency of the proceedings. That apart,
the constitutional validity of the number of provisions of the
two enactments has been assailed on many a ground which
0
are not restricted to the pending trials alone.
5. At the outset, we may state that the provisions in both
the Acts are almost similar and, therefore, we shall dwell upon
the constitutionality of the Orissa Act first and in course of our
delineation, we shall refer to the Bihar Act wherever it is E
necessary. Hence, we proceed to deal with the Orissa Act.
The State legislature keeping in view the accumulation of
extensive properties disproportionate to the known sources
of income by persons who had held or are holding high political
and public offices, thought it appropriate to provide special F
courts for speedy trial for certain class of offences and for
confiscation of properties involved; and accordingly, enacted
the Orissa Act which was passed·by the Orissa Legislative
Assembly that got the assent of the President of India. The
State Government in exercise of its power conferred under G
Section 27 of the Orissa Act framed a set of Rules, namely,
the Orissa Special Courts Rules, 2007 (for short "2007 Rules").
6. Before we dwell upon the submissions that were raised
before the High Court and how the High Court has dealt with
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A them, we think it appropriate to understand the scheme of the
Orissa Act. Section 2(a) of the Orissa Act defines "authorised
officer" which means any serving officer belonging to Orissa
Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) and who is or has
been an Additional Sessions Judge, nominated by the State
B Government with the concurrence of the High Court for the
purpose of Section 13. Section 2(c) defines "declaration" in
relation to an offence and it means a declaration made under
Section 5 in respect of such offences. The term "offence" has
been defined under Section 2(d) which means an offence of
C criminal misconduct within the meaning of clause (e) of sub-
section (1) of section 13 of the 1988 Act.As per dictionary
clause, Section 2(e) specifies "Special Court" which means a ·
Special Court would be one as provided under Section 3 of
the Orissa Act. Section 2(f) provides that words and
D expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the
Code shall have the same meanings respectively assigned to
them in the Code.
7. Section 3 of the Orissa Act deals with establishment
of Special Courts. Section 4 enables the Special Court to
E take cognizance and try such cases as are instituted before it
or transferred to it under Section 10. Section 7 deals with the
jurisdiction of Special Courts as to trial of offences. It lays down
that Special Court shall have jurisdiction to try any person
alleged to have committed the offence in respect of which a
F declaration has been made under Section 5, either as the
principal, or as a conspirator or abettor and for all the other
offences, and the accused persons can jointly be tried therewith
at one trial in accordance With the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("the Code" for short). Section 8 deals with the procedure
G and powers of the Special Courts. Sub-section (2) of Section
8 lays the postulate that save as expressly provided in the Act,
the provisions of the Code and of the 1988Actshall, in so far
as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Orissa
Act, apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1059
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
the purpose of the said provisions, the person conducting a A
prosecution before a special court shall be deemed to be a
Public Prosecutor. Section 9 provides for an appeal to the High
Court of Orissa from any judgment and sentence. Section 10
confers the power on the High Court of Orissa to transfer cases
from one Special Court to another. Section 11 ( 1) expressing B
the legislative command lays down that the special courts shall
not adjourn any trial for any purpose unless such adjournment
is, in its opinion, necessary in the interest of justice and for
reasons to be recorded in writing and sub-Section (2) of said
Section provides that the Special Court shall endeavour to C
dispose of the trial of the case within a period of one year from
the date of its institution or transfer, as the case may be. Section
12 enables the Special Judge presiding over a Special Court
on the evidence recorded by his predecessor or predecessors
or partly recorded by his predecessor or predecessors and D
partly recorded by himself. Section 13 provides for filing of
application for confiscation before the Authorised Officer. If
empowers the State Government to authorise the Public
Prosecutor to make an application and also stipulates what
the application shall accompany. E
8. Section 14 provides for issuance of show cause notice
by the Authorised Officer to the person concerned to explain
his source of income and other assets and why such money or
property or both should not be declared to have been acquired
by means of the offence and be confiscated to the State F
Government. Sub-section (2) provides that where a notice
under sub-section (1) to any person specifies any money or
property or both has been held on behalf of such person by
any other person, a copy of the notice shall also be served
upon such other person. Sub-section (3) lays down that the G
evidence, information or particulars brought on record before
the authorised officer shall not be used against the accused in
the trial before the special court. Section 15 deals with the
confiscation of property in certain cases. It provides a detailed
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A procedure and obliges the authorised officer to follow the
principles of natural justice. It prescribes a time limit for disposal
of the proceeding and gives immense stress on identification
of property or money or both which have been acquired by
means of the offence and further it makes the confiscation
B· subject to the order passed in appeal under Section 17 of the
Orissa Act. It may be noted here that the proviso to Section
15(3) stipulates that the market price of the property
confiscated, if deposited with the Authorised Officer, the
property shall not be confiscated. Section 16 lays down that
C after the issue of notice under Section 14, any money or
property or both referred to in the said notice are transferred
by any mode whatsoever, such transfer shall for the purposes
of the proceedings under the Orissa Act, be void and if such
money or property or both are subsequently confiscated to the
D State Government under Section 15, then the transfer of such
money or property or both shall be deemed to be null and
void. Section 17(1) enables the aggrieved person by the order
passed by an authorised officer to prefer an appeal within thirty
days from the date on which the order appealed against was
E passed. Sub-section (2) provides that upon appeal being
preferred under the said provision, the High Court may, after
giving such parties, as it thinks proper, an opportunity of being
heard, pass such order as it thinks fit; sub-section (3) requires
the High Court to dispose of the appeal within three months
F from the date it is preferred and stay order, if any, passed in
appeal shall not remain in force beyond the period prescribed
for disposal of appeal. Sub-section ( 1) of Section 18 of the
Orissa Act empowers the State Government to take
possession. It stipulates that where any money or property
G has been confiscated to the State Government under the Act,
the concerned authorised officer shall order the person affected
as well as any other person who may be in possession of the
money or property or both, to surrender or deliver possession
thereof to the concerned authorised officer or to any person
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1061
[DIPAK MISRA, J.)
duly authorised by in this behalf, within thirty days of the service A
of the order. The proviso to the said sub-section stipulates
that the authorised officer, on an application being made in
that behalf and being satisfied that the person affected is
residing in the property in question, may instead of
dispossessing him immediately from the same, permit such B
person to' occupy it for a limited· period to be specified on
payment of market rent to the State Government and thereafter,
such person shall deliver the vacant possession of the property.
Sub-section (2) provides that if any person refuses or fails to
comply with an order made under sub-section (1 ), the C
authorised officer may take possession of the property and
may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.
Sub-secti0n (3) confers powers on the authorised officer to
requisition service of any police officer to assist and mandates
the concerned police officer to comply with such requisition. D
9. Chapter IV of the Orissa Act deals with the
miscellaneous provisions. Section 20 stipulates that no notice
issued or served, no declaration made and no order passed
under the Act shall be deemed to be invalid by reason of any
error in the description of the property or person mentioned E
therein, if such property or person is identifiable from the
description so mentioned. Section 21 provides that the
provisions of the Orissa Act shall be in addition, and not in
derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. It also
lays down that nothing contained in the Act shall exempt any F
public servant from a proceeding, apart from this Act, be
instituted against him. Section 22 says save as provided in
Sections 9 and 17 and notwithstanding anything contained in
any of the law, no suit or any other legal proceeding shall be
maintainable in any Court in respect of money or property or G
both ordered to be confiscated under Section 15. Section 23
grants protection to the person in respect of any action done
in good faith or intended to b.e done in pursuance of the Orissa
Act. Section 24 empowers the State Government to make rules
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A as it may deem necessary for carrying out the purposes of the
Orissa Act. Section 26, an overriding provision, provides that
notwithstanding anything in the 1988 Act and the Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944 or any other law for the time
being in force, the provisions of the said Act shall prevail in
B case of any inconsistency..
10. Having enumerated the scheme of the Orissa Act,
we think it appropriate to refer to certain definitions under the
2007 Rules framed under the Orissa Act. Rule 2(e) and (f)
define "person holding high public office" and "person holding
C high political office", respectively. The said definitions read as
under:-
"2(e) "person holding high public office" includes a
public servant falling within the meaning of clause
D (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 or under Section 21 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and belonging to Group-A service of
the Central or State Government or officers of
equivalent rank in any organization specified in the
E explanation below clause (b) of Section 2 of the
said Act who was serving under or in connection
with the affairs of the State Government;
(f) "Person holding high political office" includes-
(i) members of the Council of Ministers and the
F Chief Minster;
(ii) any person falling under the definition of public
servant under clause (c) of Section 2 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under Section
G 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 who has been
appointed to discharge the executive functions of
the State in any organization specified in the
explanation below clause (b) of Section 2 of the
said Act and receiving pay or honorarium or
H allowances for the services so rendered."
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1063
[DIPAK MISRA. J.]
11. We have only referred to the abovesaid definitions A
since the learned counsel for the State has made an effort to
get support from the same and the learned counsel for the
appellants have submitted that" rules are not to be taken
recourse to for sustaining the constitutional validity of the Act.
12. Be it stated after judgment was delivered by the High 8
Court on 16.9.2010, the State Government, Department of
Home brought out a notification on 27.11.2010 amending
certain rules. The relevant rule which has been amended is as
follows:-
c
"2. In the Orissa Special Courts Rules, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), in Rule
2, in sub-rule(1 ), in clause (e), after the words and
the figures "Indian Penal Code, 1860" and before
the words "belonging to Group '/!\ Service", the D
words "including Officers of All India Services
working under Government of Orissa" shall be
.inserted."
13. The constitutional validity of the Act as well as the
Rules (prior to the amendment of the Rule) was assailed before E
the High Court in many a writ petition. The High Court noted
the rivalised contentions and basically posed six questions,
The sixth question related to a writ petitioner who was an IAS
officer and it was asserted that he belonged to a category other
than the officer of Group A service and hence, the declaration F
bringing him under the Act was illegal. Thus, the said issue
stands on a different footing and we shall in due course deal
with the said challenge but the five questions posed by the
High Court are enumerated herein:-
"(1) Whether the similar provisions in the present G
impugned Act is required to be re-examined in
these writ petitions with reference to either the
definition clause or declaration under section 5( 1)
and other provisions of Chapter Ill of the impugned
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A Act in view of the decision rendered by this Court
in Kishore Chandra Patel's case (supra) wherein
the provisions of section 5 and other similar
provisions of the impu·gned Act and Chapter Ill
(Confiscation) have already been held to be
B constitutional, legal and valid as the same do not
offend Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
(2) Whether the impugned Act is repugnant or
inconsistent with the provisions of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and other Central Acts to the
c impugned Special Courts Act, 2006?
(3) Whether the provisions of the Orissa Special
Courts Act, 2006 are repugnant to the provisions
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as
D amended byAmendmentAct, 2009?
(4)Whetherthe impugned notification issued under
section 5(1) of the Act is liable to be quashed?
(5) Whether introducing the bill as Money Bill is legal
and valid?"
E
14. After posing the said questions, the High Court dealt
with question nos. 1 and 4 together and referre? to the decision
in Kishore Chandra Patel v. State of Orissa , and observed
that in the aforesaid judgment, the constitutional validity of Part
F Ill regarding confiscation of monies and properties of the
accused persons, who were facing the criminal trial in the
Special Court constituted under the Orissa Special Courts
Act, 1990 by the State Government for speedy disposal, was
held to be legal and valid and did not violate any of the
G fundamental rights and were not inconsistent with the statutory
rights conferred either under the Code or the Criminal Law
Amendment Act or Civil Procedure Code. The High Court also
took note of the fact that the earlier Division Bench had issued
certain directions and an ordinance was brought in to cure the
1
H 1993 (76) CLT 720
\
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1065
[DIPAK MISRA, J.)
flaws and the Court had ultimately found that the amended Act A
was constitutional. Keeping the same in view, the Division
Bench by the impugned order opined that section 5 of the Act
is constitutional. The High Court also took note of an affidavit
filed on 23.7.2010 and on that basis ruled that the
apprehension that certain cases would be selectively picked B
and chosen from amongst the offenders charged under Section
13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act for the purposes of invoking the
provision of Chapter Ill was untenable in law. After making
referenc? to the authority in Delhi Administration v. V.C.
Shukla , the Court opined that the attack based on C
discrimination was unfounded and accordingly answered the
riuestion nos. 1 and 4 against the writ petitioners. While dealing
with the question no. 3 which pertained to the repugnancy of
the Orissa Act to the provisions of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 as amended by Amendment Act 2009, D
it has been opined that there was no repugnancy between the
two statutes, for the procedure under both the statutes relating
to confiscation of monies and properties of the accused are
different and further the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 does not efface the prosecution against the persons E
facing prosecutions underthe 1988Act. That apart, the Division
Bench also opined that Part A and Part B of the Schedule to
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provide that in
case of specified offence under the lnd.ian Penal Code (IPC),
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 F
(NDPS Act) and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the 1988
Act, an accused can be prosecuted under the said statutes,
apart from being prosecuted under the Preventiqn of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. The Court placed reliance on
3 •
S. Satyapa/ Reddy v. Govt. of A.P. &Ors , M.P. Sh1kshak G 4
Congress & Ors. v. R.P.F. .Commissioner,
5
Jabalpur & Ors .,
P. Venugopa/ v. Unionoflndia, M. Karunanidhi v. Union
3
(1994) 4 sec 391
4
,g~~~; ~ ~gg ~96 H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
6 7
A of India and Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. State of Bihar
and came to hold that there was no repugnancy. As far as
question no. 5 is concerned, the High Court referred to the
scheme of Articles 198 and 199, referred to the authorities in
State of Punjab v. Satyapa/8 and Burrakur Coat Co. Ltd v.
B Union of lndia 9 and negatived the assail. As is manifest, the
Court has fundamentally placed heavy reliance on earlier
legislation which was given the stamp of approval by the High
Court in Kishore Chandra Patel (supra).
15. Having stated how the Division Bench of the High
C Court of Orissa has dealt with the constitutional validity of the
Orissa Act, we think it apt and definitely for the sake of
convenience, to refer to the Bihar Act, challenges before the
High Court and the judgment rendered by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna. The Bihar Act was notified in the Gazette
D on 8.2.2010. Section 2 of the dictionary clause defines the
Act, that is, the 1988 Act, Authorised Officer, Declaration and
Offences. Section 3 deals with establishment of Special
Courts. Section 4 provides for taking cognizance of cases by
Special Courts. Section 7 provides the jurisdiction of the
E Special Courts for trial of offence. Section 8 stipulates the
procedure and powers of the Special Courts. Section 9
provides for an appeal against the judgment and sentence to
the High Court. Section 10 deals with transfer of cases.
Sections 11 and 12 deal with the role of the presiding Judge.
F Chapter 111 of the Bihar Act deals with confiscation of property.
Sections 13 to 16 are similar to the Orissa Act. Section 18
empowers the authorized officer to take possession. The
proviso appended there is similar to the Orissa Act. Section
19 deals with refund of confiscated money or property. Chapter
G IV of the Bihar Act enumerates the miscellaneous provisions
and Section 26, like the Orissa Act states as regards the
' (1979) SC 898
,AIR
,AIR (1983) SC 1019
H '~:~ ~~~~~~ ~g ~~~
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1067
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
overriding effect. The competent authority has framed a set of A
rules, namely, Bihar Special Courts Rules 2010, for short,
"2010 .Rules". Rule 2(f) of the 2010 Rules defines "public
servant" to mean a public servant as defined within the meaning .
of clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988Act or under Section 21
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and including Group-Aservice B
ofthe Central or State Government or officers of equivalent
rank in any organization specified in the explanation below
clause (b) of Section 2 of the said Act who was serving
under or in connection with the affairs of the State
Government. Rule 6 deals with cognizance and trial by the C
Special Court. Rule 9 states that the State Government, in
consultation with the High Court shall nominate an officer
belonging to the cadre of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service,
Senior Branch, who is or has been a Sessions Judge or
Additional Sessions Judge to act as the authorized officer for o
the purposes of the Act and requires him to follow the summary
procedure. Rule 13 deals with the application of CrPC
and it stipulates that the provisions of the Code shall apply to
the proceedings before the authorised officer insofar as they
are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Rule 14 E
provides for particulars of an application made before the
Authorised Officer and Form of Notice. The said Rule provides
the particulars to be mentioned while filing an application
under Section 13 of the Act which requires a range of
information to be furnished. F
16. Presently, we shall refer to the judgment rendered by
the Division Bench of the Htgh Court of Patna. It has referred
to the preamble and highlighted certain aspects of the
preamble and scanned the anatomy of the Bihar Act. It was
contended before the High Court that the declaration made G
under Section 5 which brings the case of the accused under
the purview of the Bihar Act to be tried by the Special Judge,
exposes him to the risk of confiscation of property which the
accused does not face under the 1988 Act; that when there
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A are sufficient provisions in the CrPC pertaining to disposal of
property at conclusion of the trial under Section 452, there was
no justification or warrant to introduce a provision for
confiscation; that no guidelines have been provided by the
legislature for working of Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the 2009
B Act and it is cqmpletely unguided giving total discretion to the
State Government to pick and choose any particular case; that
Section 5(1) suffers from unreasonable classification because
certain offences covered under the 1988 Act would be tried by
the Special Judge under the 1988 Act and offence defined
C under the BiharAct would be tried according to the procedure
which is more rigorous; that the necessity of speedy trial by
itself is too vague to withstand the test of reasonable
classification; that there is no intelligible differentia which can
sustain the classification and hence, it is hostile, discriminatory
D and contrary to the basic tenet of Article 14 of the Constitution;
that there has been excessive and unguided delegation of
power to the executive and, therefore, the manner of
classification to be undertaken is contrary to the constitutional
scheme.
E 17. Resisting the aforesaid submissions, it was urged
on behalf of the State that the 2009 Act was brought into
existence regard being had to the rampant corruption and
disproportionate assets amassed by the public servants
through illegal means; that it is the obligation of the State to
F prosecute such persons and confiscate their ill-gotten assets;
that Section 5(1) does not suffer from vice of discrimination
and it withstands the test of discernible differentia and there
has been no abdication of legislative function or conferment
of unguided delegation of power; that making a provision for
G speedy trial is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and in
the obtaining scenario to eradicate the maladies and the
menace, the legislature had enacted the legislation to deal
with it frontally; that the power vested under Section 5 has
enough guidance and it cannot be said that it falls foul of Article
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1069
[DIPAK MISRA, J.)
14 of the Constitution; that from the very definition of the term A
"offence" it is clear that it is in a different category or
compartment altogether; that the non-assail of the declaration
before any court would not include the High Court or the
Supreme Court of India which exercises power of judicial
review; that the challenge to Section 6(2) of the Act takes in its B
sweep the pending cases whereby making the provision
effective; that it neither offends Article 20(1) nor Article 20(3)
of the Constitution, for the plea that accused persons would
be exposed to harsher punishment relating to confiscation
which is a greater penalty that was prescribed for the offence C
under the 1988 Act, is unsustainable inasmuch as the Act does
not alter the punishment for the offence as provided under the
1988 Act and, in any case, the confiscation proceeding is an
independent proceeding to be conducted by the authorized
officer and it cannot be treated as a part of the criminal D
proceeding; that the procedure prescribed for adjudication of
· the issues relating to confiscation of properties does not suffer
from any arbitrariness inasmuch as the confiscation including
taking over possession of the confiscated property is
independent and the plea that " the findings recorded by the E
authorized officer in every likelihood to cause prejudice and
bias during the trial, is absolutely unsustainable inasmuch as
the statute itself provides the exclusion of consideration of
the said material and the findings during the trial.
18. Adverting to the rivalised submissions, the High Court F
opined that the nature of property sought to be confiscated
under the Act is different and, therefore, the assail has no
substance; that the provision in Section 13 of the Act and
related provisions in Chapter-Ill cannot be faulted on account
of ordinary principles of criminal jurisprudence that penalty or G
punishment must follow determination of guilt of the accused
for confiscation, a pro tern one, is of a different nature; that the
Act guarantees fairness to the accused by making the order
of confiscation subject to an appeal before the High Court as
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A well as subjectto the final determination of guilt of the accused
in the trial; that the general criticism that the procedure for
confiscation invites the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution
does not deserve acceptance; and that the proceeding for
confiscation is to be adjudicated by the Authorized Officer who
B has to be a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge
and hence, there is fair and adequate protection provided for
considering the case of the delinquent before passing an order
of confiscation. Adverting to the likelihood of bias, the High
Court opined that a trained judicial mind of a person holding
C post of Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge is not
expected to suffer from prejudice and the legislature has
cautiously entrusted the confiscation proceeding to an
"Authorized Officer" whereas the trial has been entrusted to
the "Special Court", and that is why the words i.e. "Authorized
D Officer" and "Special Court" have been separately defined and
the distinction is evident and it is quite clear that confiscation
proceeding and criminal trial against accused of an offence
are not conducted by the same judicial officer; and, therefore,
the likelihood of bias is not allowed to have any room.
E 19. The High Court of Patna while dealing with the vice
of Section 17(3) proceeded to interpret sub-section (3) of
Section 17 and opined that legislature has not given a definite
and fixed period of six months as the time for disposal of appeal
regard being had to the phraseology used in the provision, for
F it has been stipulated that an appeal preferred under sub-
section ( 1) shall be disposed of preferably within a period of
six months from the date it is preferred, and stay order, if any,
passed in an appeal shall not remain in force beyond the
prescribed period of disposal of appeal. The High Court has
G observed that the use of word "preferably" is a definite pointer
that the legislature has only indicated its preference that the
appeal should be disposed of within a period of six months
but it also permits disposal of the appeal beyond the period of
six months and, therefore, it will not be proper to construe that
H
YOGENDRAKUMARJAISWALETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1071
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
the prescribed period for disposal of an appeal is only six A
months. As a logical corollary, it ruled that six months is not the
prescribed period of disposal of appeal, but it is only desirable
that the appeal should be disposed of within six months, and,
accordingly, the stay order passed by the High Court will not
lose its force automatically on expiry of any particular period. B
Placing such an interpretation, the High Court of Patna
expressed the view that the said interpretation is to be preferred
in order to save the provision from the vice of
unreasonableness by causing undue hardship to the
delinquent-appellant. C
20. Dwelling on the issue of refund as contained under
Section 19 is concerned, the High Court found merit in the
contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners and
observed that there can be no justification to cause any hardship
or loss to the delinquent or the accused once the confiscation D
proceeding fails because it is the constitutional obligation of
the State that it shall not act in an unreasonable manner. Being
of this view, it clarified that Section 19 requires clarification by
way of interpretation that ordinarily when the confiscation is
modified or annulled by the High Court in an appeal or where E
the person affected is acquitted by the Special Court, the
money or property or both shall be returned to the person
affected, and for not returning the property, the State shall have
to seek permission of the High Court ot the Special Court as
the case may be to return only the price of the property and F
such permission shall be granted only when the State is able
to show good reasons as to why it is not possible to return the
property. So far as the rate of interest of 5% per annum is
·concerned, it is clearly insufficient and hence, in case the
confiscated property is not returned by showing good reasons G
that it is not possible to do so, the interest payable must be at
the usual bank rate prevailing during the relevant period for a·
loan to purchase or acquire similar property and then alone
the constitutionality of the said provision can be saved.
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 21. Dealing with the grievance relating to forceful eviction
from dwelling house ordinarily occupied by the delinquent/
accused prior to final determination of guilt in course of trial
for the offence, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act,
the Division Bench observed that the said provision makes
B no distinction between the properties found fit for confiscation,
for all the properties subjected to confiscation proceeding
whether they are dwelling house or other kinds of property have
been treated alike. Addressing to the submission that an
exception should have been made in respect of a dwelling
C house or unit where the delinquent/accused ordinarily resides
himself with or without his family, because the dwelling house
meets one of the basic needs of a person and it would be
arbitrary to deprive a delinquent of such basic requirement
when the trial is still pending and taking note of the argument
D on behalf of the State that the entire confiscated property has
to be treated similarly and not making of an exception for a
dwelling house o"r unit from the provisions of Section 18 does
not violate any constitutional provision, the High Court opined
that no distinction made between the two sets of properties is
E justified. That apart, the Court held that once the relevant
purpose is to confiscate all the ill-gotten money or property,
even if such property includes a dwelling house or unit also
under the scheme of the Act, and if there would be any
exclusion, it would, to a large ex1ent, frustrate the object of the
F Act instead of subserving the purposes of the Act. It further
opined that if after undergoing the reasonable procedure of
confiscation proceeding, including appeal, a dwelling house
or unit of the delinquent is found to be ill-gotten property which
cannot be accounted for on the basis of lawful income of the
G delinquent, there can be hardly any justification to allow the
delinquent to continue in enjoyment of such ill- gotten property
only because the trial is still pending. The legislature having
taken precautions to expedite the trial and if it is made to linger
inspite of such provisions, the accused would always be at
H
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1073
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
·liberty to take remedial action and get the trial expedited. Being A
of this view, the Writ Court found that the said provision does
not violate any of the facets of Articles 14 and 21 of the
· Constitution of India.
22. It wcis also urged before the High Court that the
confiscation proceedings as provided under the Act is 8
impermissible because it leaves no option to the affected
person but to disclose his defence prior to holding of the trial
and such compulsion upon him to disclose true state of affairs
in the confiscation proceeding frustrates the right guaranteed
by the Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The High Court did not C
find any substance in the said submission and opined that grant
of opportunity in confiscation proceeding to the delinquent
· official cannot be construed as compelling him to be a witness
against himself. It also opined that considering the nature of
the two proceedings, both could be maintained together or D
one after another, for the order of confiscation has been made
subject to a final judgment in the trial by the Special Court.
23. Dealing with an Interlocutory Application bearing No.
10468 of 2010 filed in CWJC No. 10735/201 O after dealing E
with the constitutional validity of the Act, the High Court
expressed its unwillingness to decide the vi res of the 2010
Rules which was sought to be challenged as the said I.A. was
not pressed. However, the High Court observed as follows:-
"Although we have given the liberty aforesaid but F
sometimes it is useful to observe certain facts in
order to avoid unnecessary litigation. In respect of
Bihar Special Court's Rules, 2010 a grievance was
raised that Rule 12(f) envisages a procedure which
is contrary to procedure prescribed for trial of G
warrant cases before a Magistrate which has been
prescribed by Section 18( 1) of the Act. It goes
without saying that in case of conflict between Act
of Legislature and Rules framed under the Act, the
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A provisions of the Act will prevail. The State of Bihar
is expected to take note of the aforesaid
submission in its own interest and amend the
relevant Rule if there is any need felt forthe same."
24. Thus, the High Court interpreted certain provisions
B to sustain the constitutional validity of the Act and as far as the
Rule is concerned observed as above, and thereafter
dismissed the writ petitions.
25. We have heard Mr.A, Saran, Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, Mr.
c P.S. Narasimha, Mr. R.K. Dash, Mr. Rakhruddin, Mr. S.B.
Upadhyaya, Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Mr.
Anirudh Sanganeria, and Mr. M.P. Jha, learned counsel for
the appellants and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned
senior counsel, Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Shibashish Misra and
0 Mr. Nish ant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for
the respondents.
26. At the outset, we think it appropriate to mention that-
the learned counsel for the parties had addressed at length
with regard to the issues raised before the High Court and
E also canvassed certain issues of law before us and we had
permitted them to argue the matter from all angles. Before we
enumerate the issues that have been urged before the High
Court and the additional points that have been canvassed
before us, it is necessary to understand the background of the
F legislation. We have already indicated at the beginning the
purpose of enacting the legislation by the States of Odisha
and Bihar and have scanned the scheme of both the Acts and
also adumbrated upon the reasoning ascribed by the High
Courts while upholding the constitutional validity of the
G enactments. Be it noted, the objects and reasons of the Orissa
Act as well as that of the Bihar Act are almost similar. Therefore,
we only reproduce the objects and reasons of the Orissa Act.
It reads as follows:- ·
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1075
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"An Act to provide for the constitution of special A
courts for the speedy trial of certain class of
offences and for confiscation of the properties
involved.
WHEREAS corruption is perceived to be amongst
the persons holding high political and public offices B
in the State of Orissa;
AND, WHEREAS, investigations conducted by the
agencies of the Government disclose prima facie
evidence, confirming existence of such corruptions; c
AND WHEREAS, the Government have reasons
to believe that large number of persons, who had
held or are holding high political and public offices
have accumulated vast property, disproportionate
to their known sources of income by resorting to D
corrupt means;
AND, WHEREAS, it is constitutional, legal and
moral obligation of the State to prosecute persons
involved in such corrupt practices;
E
AND, WHEREAS, the existing courts of Special
Judges cannot reasonably be expected to bring the
trials, arising out of those prosecutions, to a speedy
termination and it is imperative for the efficient
functioning of a parliamentary democracy and the F
institutions created by or under the Constitution of
India that the aforesaid offenders should be tried
with utmost dispatch;
AND WHEREAS, it is necessary for the said
purpose to establish Special Courts to be presided G·
over by the persons who are or have been Sessions
Judge and it is also expedient to make some
procedural changes whereby avoidable delay in the
final determination of the guilt or innocence, of the
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A · persons to be tried, is eliminated without interfering
with the right to a fair trial."
27. The objects and reasons and various provisions of
the Act which we have referred to in course of our narration
would show that there is immense emphasis on corruption by
B the people holding high political and public offices. The stress
is on accumulation of wealth disproportionate to the known
sources of their income by resorting to corrupt practices.
Corruption at high levels has been taken note of by this Court
in many a judgment. This Court has also on the basis of reports
C of certain Commissions/Committees, from time to time, has
painfully addressed to the burning issue of corruption. In Manoj
Narula v. Union of India", the Constitution Bench harping on
the concept of systemic corruption, has been constrained to
state that systemic corruption and sponsored criminalisation
D can corrode the fundamental core of elective democracy and,
consequently, the constitutional governance. A democratic
republic polity hopes and aspires to be governed by a
government which is run by the elected representatives who
do not have any involvement in serious criminal offences or
E offences relating to corruption, casteism, societal problems,
affecting the sovereignty of the nation and many other offences.
28. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of
Maharashtra", the Court was compelled to say that corruption
F is notto be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder,
destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved
ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the
institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country,
corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of
G governance. The Court furthe'r observed that immoral
acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people
believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they
have suffered; and the only redeeming fact is that collective
'°,, (2014) g sec 1
H (2013) 4 sec 642
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1077.
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with A
the constitution?I morality. The emphasis was on intolerance
of any kind of corruption bereft of its degree.
29. While dealing with the constitutional validity of Section
6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the
Constitution Bench in Subramanian Swamy v. CB!", clearly B
stated that corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking
down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a
necessary mandate of the 1988 Act and it is difficult to justify
the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because
the goal of law in the 1988 Act is to meet corruption cases C
with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned
through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants
have to face very serious consequences.
30. We have highlighted the facet of corruption and the 0
object and reasons of the Orissa Act which basically aims to
curb corruption at high places and in the course of hearing, it
has been urged by the learned counsel for both the States that
corruption at higher levels is required to be totally repressed,
for it destroys the fiscal health of the society and it hampers E
progress. The learned counsel for the appellants have
submitted that there cannot be any cavil over the issue that
corruption should be hindered from all angles, but when the
State legislature brings a new law into existence despite an
earlier law, that is, the 1988 Act, the special legislation has to F
withstand close scrutiny and satisfy the test that is warranted
under the constitutional parameters. To elaborate, highlighting
on the existing scene of corruption the State legislature or any
legislature cannot be allowed to introduce a law which is not
constitutionally permissible.
G
31. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have
raised many a submission and their arguments can be
summaried as follows:-
12
(2014) s sec es2
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A (A) The Orissa Act has been introduced in the assembly
as a money bill whereas it does not relT\otely have any
characteristics of a money bill and hence, it violates the
mandate of Article 199 of the Constitution.
(B) The State legislature does not have the authority to
B make provisions for establishment of Special Courts for
the offences provided. under the Central Act regard being
had to the language employed in Article 247 of the
Constitution and hence, it suffers from the vice of the
said constitutional provision.
c
(C) The assent obtained from the President of India, the
same being imperative, is only in respect of few
provisions and not for all the provisions of the Orissa Act
and, therefore, it suffers from substantial illegality which
D has made the Act unconstitutional.
(D) The provisions contained in the OrissaAct cover many
a range and sphere that come within the ambit and sweep
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and
has encroached into legislation in the occupied field. That
E apart, there is inherent inconsistency between the 1988
Act and the Orissa Act and that allows enough room for
repugnancy, as is understood within the conceptual
sweep of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, to set in.
(E) The State legislation makes a distinction between
F the other offences under Section 13 and 13(1 )(e) without
any inte!ligible differentia between the two categories
of offences and in the absence of any justifiable
classification test, the provision is ultra vires the Article
14 of the Constitution.
G
(F) The corruption on which the fulcrum of argument of
the State rests for bringing such a legislation is
impermissible inasmuch as corruption is an all India
phenomenon and in other States, similarly situated
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1079
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
persons are tried under the 1988 Act, but in Odis ha they A
are tried under the special provisions for no manifest
reason.
(G) The OrissaAct does not define "high political offices"
and "high public offices" but an attempt has been made
to define the same in the Rules, but the Rules cannot 8
stand as pillars to support the constitutional validity of ·
the legislation. That apart, these terms are extremely
vague and leave enough room to the executive to adopt
any kind of discrimination which is impermissible.
c
(H) Section 5 of the Orissa Act deals with declaration
and said provision confers wide and untrammelled
discretion and unbridled power on the executive to
choose a particular person or allow the executive to adopt
pick and choose method thereby clearly inviting the frown 0
of Article 14.
(I) The provisions in the Orissa Act provide for confiscation
at the pre-trial stage and eventually at pre-conviction
stage which is extremely harsh and, in fact, it takes away
the properties of a citizen without any compensation E
thereby it violates Article 300A of the Constitution.
(J) The concept of confiscation in such a case is
confiscatory in nature and, therefore, it is extremely
arbitrary and unreasonable. That apart, the confiscation
of the properties including the dwelling house disrobes F
a person from living with dignity having basic requirement
of life and hence, :t offends Article 21 of the Constitution.
The proviso which carves out an exception to enable a
delinquent officer to retain the dwelling house on payment
of the market price is in a way deceptive inasmuch as G
all the properties and bank accounts are seized it is
well-nigh impossible to offer the market price and the
legislature has not kept in view that the law does not
envisage an impossible act to be done. In essence, the
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A criticism is that the proviso does not save the provisions
from being offensive of Article 21 of the Constitution.
(K) In the proceedings for confiscation, the accused is
bound to disclose all his defence at the pre-trial stage
and that ultimately plays foul of Article 20(3) of the
B Constitution and also Article 21 which encompasses a
fair trial and does not tolerate any violation of the same.
(L) The accused persons against whom cases have been
registered under the 1988Actare compelled to be tried
c under the present OrissaAct as a consequence of which
they have to face a pre-trial confiscation which was not
there in the 1988 Act and that clearly violates the basic
tenet of Article 20( 1) of the Constitution, for the provisions
of the Act cannot be allowed to operate retrospectively
.D when it imposes a different kind of punishment.
(M) The mandate by the legislature in Section 17 that an
order of stay passed by the appellate court, that is, the
High Court, shall remain in force for a period of three
months and would stand automatically vacated, is an
E encroachment on the power of court proceedings and
there can be no shadow of doubt that such a provision
creates a dent in the concept of power of judicial review,
which is constitutionally not allowable.
(N) The provision contained in Section 19 of the Orissa
F Act which pertains to payment of amount with five per
cent interest per annum when the State Government is
not in a position to return the property and the value of
the property has to be on the date of confiscation, is
absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable _which clearly
G invites the discomfort of Article 14 and also clearly
violates Article 300Aofthe Constitution.
(0) The reason ascribed to classify the persons holding
high public office or high political office on the foundation
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1081
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
that there is a necessity for speedy trial is absolutely no A
justification because there has to be speedy trial in every
case.
32. Resisting the aforesaid submissions and defending
the judgment of the High Court, learned counsel for the State
of Odisha has submitted as follows:- B
(I) The Bill was introduced in the legislature as a money
bill, regard being had to the confiscation of
disproportionate assets by way of interim measure and
various other aspects and, in any case, the introduction c
of such a bill as a money bill would not invalidate the
legislation and the High Court is justified in placing
reliance upon Article 212 of the Constitution. Emphasis
is laid on legislative independence on this score.
(II) The interpretation placed by the appellant on Article D
24 7 is absolutely incorrect because the said Article does
not enjoin that the Parliament alone in all circumstances
can provide for additional courts for carrying out the
provisions of the Central Act. That apart, in the instant
case, the Special Courts are established after obtaining E
the assentfrom the President and, therefore, the provision
for establishing the Special Courts by the State
Government in consultation with the High Court does not
become unconstitutional.
(Ill) The submission that the assent has not been obtained F
in respect of all the provisions of the Orissa Act and,
therefore, the Orissa Act is invalid and cannot withstand
scrutiny, is absolutely unsustainable, for the entire
enactment with notes were sent for the assent of the
President and the same has been given due assent by G
the President as required under the Constitution.
(IV) The submission that the provisions of the OrissaAct
are repugnant to other enactment as the provisions
H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A encroach upon the offences under the Acts, namely, the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as amended
in 2009, is totally untenable as the sphere of operation is
altogether different.
(V) The submission that there is no rationale to differently
B try the offence punishable under Section 13(1 )(e)
separating it from other offences under Section 13 in the
backdrop of Article 14, is absolutely unacceptable
inasmuch as there is a gulf of difference between the
two categories of offences as the offence under Section
c 13(1 )( e) relates to amassing of wealth disproportionate
to the income of the person.
(VI) The stand that the Act does not define "high political
office" and "high public office" and hence, confers
D unfettered discretion on the executive is sans substance,
for the said words are well understood and really do not
allow any room for exercise of any arbitrary power. Quite
apart from that, the State Government has framed the
rules which supplement the Act. In this backdrop, the
E question of any discrimination taking place, as argued,
is inconceivable.
(VII) The principle of speedier disposal of corruption
cases at high levels, especially instituted under Section
13(1 )(e) of the 1988Act, is definitely a ground to sustain
F the provisions of the Orissa Act.
(VIII) The plea that provisions, namely, Sections 5 and 6,
and the provisions pertaining to confiscation being
irrational and discriminatory, are violative of Article 14,
is wholly unacceptable inasmuch as the classification in
G respect of offences, that is, Section 13(1 )(a) to (1 )(e),
stand on a different footing and the intelligible differentia
is clearly demonstrable. The attack on the provisions on
the plank of unbridled conferment of power on the
executive to pick and choose pertaining to the
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1083
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
declaration is on an erroneous understanding of the A
provision, forthe provision has to be read in an apposite
manner to convey the meaning that the State Government
has extremely limited discretion only t9 see whether the
offence falls under Section 13(1)(e) or not and the
moment a person covered under the Act is booked for B
the offence under Section 13( 1)( e), the State Government
has no further discretion than to make a declaration to
transfer the case to the Special Court.
(IX) The challenge to the confiscatory proceeding which
is 'pro tern' in nature, is devoid of any merit, for it is C
constitutionally permissible inasmuch as acquisition of
property by the delinquent is associated with ill-gotten
money and has no connection with the property which is
acquired by the person from acceptable component of
his earnings. The submission that retention of a dwelling D
house on payment of market price is extremely harsh
and, in fact, it effectively affects the right to life as is
understood within the broader umbrella of Article 21 of
the Constitution is based on erroneous premises.
E
(X) The argument that the accused persons being tried
in respect of other offences under the 1988 Act do not
face the situation of interim confiscation, whereas the
accused persons facing trial under the Orissa Act face
the confiscation proceedings which is arbitrary has no F
legs to stand upon if the classification as regards
offences and the forum is valid, for that, as a natural
corollary, would structurally protect the interim
confiscation.
(XI) The assailment as regards the retro~pective G
applicability is concerned, may, on a first blush, look quite
attractive but on a keener scrutiny it has to pale into
insignificance. The plea that it plays foul of Article 20(1)
of the Constitution is absolutely unsound.
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A (XII) The provisions relating to confiscation are absolutely
guided and, in fact, a judicial officer of the rank of
Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge is
nominated as the authorised officer and there is an
appeal provided from his order which would show that
B the confiscation is not done at the whim and caprice of
the executive but after affording adequate opportunity to
the delinquent officer. Therefore, it is not hit by Article 1"4
of the Constitution.
(XIII) The criticism that the provision for order of stay
c passed by the appellate court, that is, the High Court,
shall remain in force for a period of three months may be
treated as a directory provision so as to require the court
to dispose of the appeal within three months; and the
order of stay, if any, passed in an appeal shall not remain
D in force beyond the prescribed period of disposal of
appeal.
(XIV) The challenge to Section 19 of the Orissa Act which
pertains to release.of the confiscated property after the
E release order and further provision that if it is not possible
to return, to pay the value with five per cent interest per
annum has to be appropriately understood, for this can
only happen in a very rarest occasion and the words used
in the provision are to be appropriately understood
because of some reason beyond control like due to
F
natural disaster or some other calamity; and not because
of any appropriation of the property by the State
Government. In essence, the submission is, the said
provision can be read down to sustain its constitutional
validity.
G
33. First, we shall take up the issue pertaining to the
introduction of the Bill as a money bill in the State legislature.
Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for some of the
appellants, has laid emphasis on the said aspect. Article 199
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1085
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
of the Constitution, defines Money Bills. For our present A
purpose, sub-article (3) of Article 199 being relevant is
reproduced below:-
"(3). If any question arises whether a Bill introduced
in the Legislature of a State which has a Legislative
Council is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the B
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of such State
thereon shall be final."
We have extracted the same as we will be referring to
the authorities as regards interpretation of the said sub-article. · c
34. Placing reliance on Article 199, learned counsel would
submit that the present Act which was introduced as a money
bill has remotely any connection with the concept of money
bill. It is urged by him that the State has made a Sisyphean
endeavour to establish some connection. The High Court to D
repel the challenge had placed reliance upon Article 212 which
stipulates that the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature
of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any
alleged irregularity of procedure.
E
35. Learned counsel ,for the appellants has drawn
inspiration from a passage from Special Reference No. 1 of
1964", wherein it has been held that Article 212(1) lays down
that the validity of any proceedings in the legislature of a State
shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged
irregularity of procedure and Article 212(2) confers immunity F
on the officers and members of the legislature in whom powers
are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure
or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the
legislature from being subject to the jurisdiction of any court in
respect of the exercise by him of those powers. The Court G
opined that Article 212(1) seems to make it possible for a
citizen to call in question in the appropriate Court of law the
validity of any proceedings inside the Legislative Chamber if
13
AIR 1965 SC 745 H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A his case is that the said proceedings suffer not from mere
irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the impugned
procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to
be scrutinised in a Court of law, though such scrutiny is
prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is not more
B than that the procedure was irregular. Thus, the said authority
has made a distinction between illegality of procedure and
irregularity of procedure.
36. Our attention has also been drawn to certain
paragraphs from the Constitution Bench decision in Raja
C Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others . In
N
the said case, in paragraphs 360 and 366, it has been held
thus:-
"360. The question of extent of judicial review of
D parliamentary matters has to be resolved with
reference to the provision contained in Article
122( 1) that corresponds to Article 212 referred to
in M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha,AIR
1960 SC 1186 [Pandit Sharma (//)]. On a plain
E reading, Article 122(1) prohibits "the validity of any
proceedings in Parliament" from being "called in
question" in a court merely on the ground of
"irregularity of procedure". In other words, the
procedural irregularities cannot be used by the court
to undo or vitiate what happens within the four walls
F
of the legislature. But then, "procedural irregularity''
stands in stark contrast to "substantive illegality'
which cannot be found included in the former. We
are of the considered view that this specific
provision with regard to check on the role of the
G
judicial organ vis-a-vis proceedings in Parliament
uses language which is neither vague nor
ambiguous and, therefore, must be treated as the
constitutional mandate on the subject, rendering
'4
H (2001) 3 sec 1s4
YOGENDRAKUMARJAISWALETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1087
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
unnecessary search for an answer elsewhere or A
invocation of principles of harmonious construction.
xxxxxxxxxx
366. The touchstone upon which parliamentary
actions within the four walls of the legislature were B
examined was both the constitutional as well as
substantive law. The proceedings which may be
tainted on account of substantive illegality or
unconstitutionality, as opposed to those suffering
from mere irregularity thus cannot be held c
protected from judicial scrutiny by Article 122(1)
inasmuch as the broad principle laid down in
Bradlaugh, (1884) 12 QBD 271 : 53 LJQB 290:
50 LT 620, acknowledging exclusive cognizance
of the legislature in England has no application to 0
the system of governance provided by our
Constitution wherein no organ is sovereign and
each organ is amenable to constitutional checks
and controls, in which scheme of things, this Court
is entrusted with the duty to be watchdog of and E
guarantor of the Constitution."
37. In this regard, we may profitably refer to the authority
in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another", wherein a three-Judge Bench while dealing with
such a challenge, held that Article 212 precludes the courts F
from interfering with the presentation of a Bill for assent to the
Governor on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure
for passing Bills, or from otherwise questioning the Bills passed
by the House, for proceedings inside the legislature cannot
be called into question on the ground that they have not been G
carried on in accordance with the Rules of Business.
Thereafter, the Court referring to Article 199(3) ruled that the
decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the
15
(2014) 11 sec 415
H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision
cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of the State
Legislature be questioned by°virtue of Article 212. The Court
took note of the decision in Raja Ram Pal (supra) wherein it
has been held that the proceedings which may be tainted on
B account of substantive or gross irregularity or unconstitutionality
are not protected from judicial scrutiny. Eventually, the Court
repelled the challenge.
38. In our considered opinion, the authorities cited by
the learned counsel for the appellants do not render much
C assistance, for the introduction of a bill, as has been held in
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui (supra), comes within the concept of
"irregularity" and it does come with the realm of substantiality.
What has been held in the Special Reference No. 1of1964
(supra) has to be appositely understood. The factual matrix
D therein was totally different than the case at hand as we find
that the present controversy is wholly covered by the
pronouncement in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui (supra) and hence,
we unhesitatingly hold that there is no merit in the submission
so assiduously urged by the learned counsel for the appellants.
E
39. The next issue pertains to understanding of ambit
and sweep of Article 24 7 of the Constitution. The said Article
reads as follows:-
"Article 247. Power of Parliament to provide
F for the establishment of certain additional
courts.- Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter,
Parliament may by law provide for the
establishment of any additional courts for the better
administration of laws made by Parliament or of
G any existing laws with respect to a matter
enumerated in the Union List."
40. Relying on the said constitutional provision, learned
counsel has proponed that the Article empowers the
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1089
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] .
Parliament to provide for establishment of certain additional A
courts and that too for the better administration of laws made
by Parliament. He has contended that no part of the
Constitution confers power on State legislature to create
additional courts for administering central laws and, therefore,
the Orissa Act is ultra vires Article 24 7 of the Constitution. He B
has referred to Article 366(10) of the Constitution to buttress
the proposition that courts can be established in respect of
central laws only by the Parliament and not by the State
legislature, for the said Article denudes the State legislature
the competence to make laws and create additional courts for C
administering laws made by the Parliament.
41. The aforesaid submission has to be carefully
scrutinised. The Article is not to be understood the way it is put
. forth. Recently, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
and another", a contention was advanced by the Union of D
India, respondent therein, that Article 247 empowers
Parliament to establish additional courts for better
administration in respect of laws passed under List I of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. After reproducing Article
247, the Constitution Bench noted the following submissions E
which throw some light:-
"Referring to the above provision, it was the
assertion of the learned counsel for the
respondents, that power was expressly vested with
F
Parliament to establish additional courts for better
administration of laws. It was submitted that this
was exactly what Parliament had chosen to do while
enacting the NTT Act. Referring to the objects and
reasons, indicating the basis of the enactment of
G
the NTT Act, it was the categorical assertion at the
hands of the learned counsel, that the impugned
enactment was promulgated with the clear
understanding that NTT would provide better
'" (2014) 10 sec 1 H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A adjudication of legal issues arising out of direct/
indirect tax laws."
42. Be it noted, in the said case, the constitutional validity
of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005was called in question
on many a ground. One of the grounds that was urged by the
8 petitioner therein was that the appellate power of the High
Court in respect of substantial question of law could not have
been taken away by the Parliament. Defending the legislation,
the respondents apart from other grounds, had also laid
emphasis on Article 247 and we have rep_roduced the
C paragraph from the judgment. It has to be borne in mind that
this Court was dealing with the abolition of the appellate
jurisdiction enshrined under Article 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 which had not
taken away the power of judicial review. The submission on
D behalf of the Union of India was that its power to establish the
courts is created under a statute. Keeping that in view, we
have to focus on the 1988Act. In the 1988Act, under Section
3 special Judges stand appointed by the concerned States to
deal with the offences and the State Governments in
E consultation with the High Court appoint requisite special
Judges. Section 3 of the 1988 Act provides that the Central
Government or the State Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may
be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group
F of cases as may be specified in the notification to try any
offence punishable under this Act; and any conspiracy to
commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the
offences specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of the said
Section.
G
43. The present Orissa Act which specifically deals with
offences under Section 13(1 )(e) and provides for Special
Courts for the trial of the said offences has got the assent of
the President. It is to be understood that under the 1988 Act
H
YOGENDRAKUMARJAISWALETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1091
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
the State had the authority to appoint special Judges in respect A
of all the offences. Presently, one part of the offence has been
carved out and after obtaining assent Special Courts have
been established. In view of the fact situation, it does not violate
Article 24 7. That apart, the language employed in Article 24 7
does not take away the jurisdiction of the State legislature for B
constitution of courts. Entry 11-A of List Ill of the Seventh
Schedule, which provides for "administration of Justice;
constitution and organisation of all courts, except the Supreme
Court and the High Courts", has been transferred from Entry 3
of List I by the 42"' Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1976 in C
order to make it a concurrent power. It was opined in 0. N.
Mohindroo v. The Bar Council Of Delhi & Ors" that it was
within the exclusive power of the St.ate. After the amendment
both Parliament and the State legislature are empowered under
the Constitution to give the High Court general power including D
territorial jurisdiction and also take away jurisdiction and powers
from the High Court which have been conferred by the statutory
law by enacting appropriate legislation which is referable to
administration of justice. But, it cannot.take away the power
specifically conferred on the High Courts under the E
Constitution. This principle has been stated in the following
terms in Jamshed N. Guzdarv. State of Maharashtra18 ;-
"ln the light of the various decisions referred to
above, the position is clear that the expression
"administration of justice" has wide amplitude F
. covering conferment of general jurisdiction on all
courts including High Court except the Supreme
9ourt under Entry 11-A of List Ill. It may be also
noticed· that some of the decisions rendered
dealing with Entry 3 of List II prior to 3-1-1977 G
touching "administration of justice" support the view
that conferment of general jurisdiction is covere.d
H
18
AIR 1968 SC 888
(2005) 2 sec 591 H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A under the topic "administration of justice". After 3-
1-1977 a part of Entry 3 namely "administration of
justice" is shifted to List Ill under Entry 11-A. This
only shows that the topic "administration of justice"
can now be legislated both by the Union as well as
B the State Legislatures. As long as there is no Union
legislation touching the same topic, and there is no
inconsistency between the Central legislation and
State legislation on this topic, it cannot be said that
the State Legislature had no competence to pass
C the 1987 Act and the 1986 Act."
44. Interpreting Entry 11-A this Court in the Special
Courts Bill, 1978" has held that Parliament has concurrent
power to set up Special Courts for the trial of offences of
special class. In this regard, we may reproduce the relevant
D passage from the said authority:-
"44. The challenge to the legislative competence
of Parliament to provide for the creation of Special
Courts is devoid of substance. Entry 11-A of the
Concurrent List relates to "Administration of justice;
E
constitution and organisation of all courts, except
the Supreme Court and the High Court". By virtue
of Article 246 (2), Parliament has clearly the power
to make laws with respect to the constitution and
organisation, that is to say, the creation and setting
F
up of Special Courts. Clause 2 of the Bill is therefore
within the competence of the Parliament to enact."
45. Be it noted that a contention was raised that
Parliament could not have created Special Courts but the
G Court repelled the said submission and accepted the
contention that such a power exists with Parliament in view of
Articles 138(1) and 246(1) and Entries 77, 78 and 99 of List I
of the Seventh Schedule and Entry 11-Aof List Ill and the courts
H "(1979) 1 sec 380
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1093
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
can be created by the State legislature as well as by the A
Parliament. As has been indicated earlier, Section 3 of the
1988Act empowers the State Government to constitute special
courts and when a category of offence has been segregated
and for the said purpose the Orissa Act has been enacted
and assent has been taken, the power to constitute special B
courts cannot be found to be fallacious.
46. Under the scheme of the Constitution, the courts as
established by the State are to administer the laws made by
the Parliament as well as by the State legislature and have the
obligation to carry the administration of justice but the same is C
subject to Entry 77 and Entry 78 of List I. Entry 77 and Entry
78 of List I read as follows:-
"Entry 77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction
and powers of the Supreme Court (including D
contempt of such Court}, and the fees taken therein;
persons entitled to practise before the Supreme
Court.
Entry 78. Constitution and organisation (including
va,~ations) of the High Courts except provisions as E
to officers and servants of High Courts; persons
entitled to practise before the High Courts."
47. Entry 46 of List Ill in this context needs to be
reproduced:-
F
. "Entry 46. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts,
except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of
the matters in this List."
Entry 65 of List II is worth referring to :-
G
"Entry 65 .. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except
the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in
this List."
48. The aforesaid entries :nake it clear that as regards
jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court, the Parliament H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A has exclusive legislative competency and as far as the
jurisdiction other than Supreme Court and the High Courts is
concerned, the power can be exercised by the Union and the
State legislature. The purpose of Article 24 7, which
commences with a non-obstante clause, is to confer power
B on the Parliament to create additional courts for the better
administration of a particular Union law, but it cannot be said
that the State cannot make laws for adjudication and
administration of justice in respect of a parliamentary
legislation more so, when initially power was conferred under
C Section 3 of the 1988 Act and assent has been accorded for
establishment of Special Courts for adjudication of the offence.
Let it be made clear that we have so answered regard being
had to the offence being carved out and a different category of
Special Courts are constituted to try the said offence. It does
o not take away the power already conferred under Section 3 of
the 1988Act.
49. The next aspect we shall dwell upon pertains to
repugnancy and the nature of "assent" obtained by the State
Government from the President under Article 254(2) of the
E Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel forthe
appellants is that though the State legislature reserved it for
presidential assent, yet assent has not been taken in respect
of the entire Orissa Act and also in respect of other laws,
namely, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, etc.
F as a consequence of which it will ultimately lead to a situation
of anomaly and, therefore, there is repugnancy in respect of
existing legislations in similar fields enacted by the Parliament
and the Orissa Act.
G 50. Article 254 deals with inconsistency between laws
made by the Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of
States. Article 254(2) deals with laws made by the State
legislature in respect of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List. The issue of repugnancy arises when the
H subjects come within List Ill of the Seventh Schedule. In
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1095
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Another v. State of Bihar A
and Others'°, the Court referred to the authority in Deep
Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors." wherein
Subba Rao, J., analysing the ratio of earlier authorities, had
taken note of three tests evolved by Nicholas in his "Australian
Constitution" as regards inconsistency or repugnancy. The B
three tests are (i) there may be inconsistency in the actual terms
of the competing statutes; (ii) though there may be no direct
conflict, a State law may be inoperative because \he
Commonwealth law, or the award of the Commonwealth Court,
is intended to be a complete exhaustive Code; and (iii) even C
· in the absence of intention, a conflict may arise when both State
and Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the
same subject-matter. The Court had placed reliance upon
Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
22
O~.. D
51. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to state that:-
"The question of repugnancy under Article 254(1)
between a law made by Parliament and a law made
by the State Legislature arises only in case both E
the legislations occupy the same field with respect
to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent
List, and there is direct conflict between the two
laws. It is only when both these requirements are
fulfilled that the State law will, to the extent of
F
repugnancy become void. Article 254(1) has no
application to cases of repugnancy due to
overlapping found between List II on the one hand
and List I and List Ill on the other. If such overlapping
exists in any particular case, the State law will be
G
ultra vi res because of the non-obstante clause in
Article 246(1) read with the opening words "subject
-
:, AIR 1983 SC 1019 = 1983 (4) sec 45
22
(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 8
(1956) SCR 393 H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A to" in Article 246(3). In such a case, the State law
will fail not because of repugnance to the Union law
but due to want of legislative competence. It is no
doubt true that the expression "a law made by
Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact"
B in Article 254(1) is susceptible of a construction that
repugnance between a State law and a law made
by Parliament may take place outside the
concurrent sphere because Parliament is
competent to enact law with respect to subjects
C included in List Ill as well as 'List I' But if Article
254(1) is read as a whole, it will be seen that it is
expressly made subject to clause (2) which makes
reference to repugnancy in the field of Concurrent
List-in other words, if clause (2) is to be the guide
D in the determination of scope of clause (1 ), the
repugnancy between Union and State law must
be taken to refer only to the Concurrent field. Article
254( 1) speaks of a State law being repugnant to
(a) a law made by Parliament or (b) an existing law."
E 52. Thus, it is settled in law th~t the State law may become
repugnant when there is a direct conflict between the two
provisions. In this regard, reference to the authority in
Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd.
and Another" would be instructive. It has been held therein
F that recourse to the said principles, however, would be resorted
to only when there exists direct conflict between two provisions
and not otherwise. Once it is held that the law made by the
Parliament and the State Legislature occupy the same field,
the subsequent legislation made by the State which had
G received the assent of the President of India indisputably would
prevail over the parliamentary Act when there exists direct
conflict between two enactments. It has been further observed
that both the laws would ordinarily be allowed to have their
H "(2004) e sec 36
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1097
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
play in their own respective fields; however, in the event there A
exists any conflict, the parliamentary Act or the $late Act shall
prevail over the other depending upon the fact as to whether
the assent of the President has been obtained therefor or not.
53. There can be a situation where two enactments come
into the field where obedience to each of them may be possible B
without disobeying the other. Repugnancy may, however, come
in if one statute commands anything to be done and the other
enactment may say the contrary and that even both the laws
cannot co-exist together. In such cases, as has been ruled in
M.P. AIT Permit Owners Association and Another v. State C
of M.P.", the law made by Parliament shall prevail over the
State law. Same principle has been reiterated in Govt. ofA.P.
and Another v. J.B. Educational Society and Another".
54. Thus viewed, repugnancy arises when there is a clear 0
and direct inconsistency between the central law and the State
law and such inconsistency is irreconcilable. It is because in
such a situation there is a direct collision with the Central Act
or brings about a situation where obeying one would lead to
disobeying the other. In Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk E
Producers Societies Union Ltd." it has been spelt out that
clause (2) of Article 254, however, provides that where a
law made by the legislature of a State with respect to one
of the matters enumerated in the Coricurrent List, contains
any provision repugnant to an existing law with respect to that F
matter, then, the law so made by the legislature of such State
shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the
President and has received his assent, prevail in that State.
The question of repugnaocy can arise only with reference to a
legislation made by Parliament falling under the Concurrent G
List or an existing law with reference to one of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List. If a law made by the State
Legislature covered by an entry in the State List incidentally
" (2004) 1 sec 320
"(2005) 3 sec 212
"(2007) 9 sec 109 H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 14 S.C.R.
A touches any of the entries in the Concurrent List, Article 254 is
not attracted. But where a law covered by an entry in the State
List (or an amendment to a law covered by an entry in the
State List) made by the State Legislature contains a provision,
which directly and substantially relates to a matter enumerated
B in the Concurrent List and is repugnant to any provision of an
existing law with respect to that matter in the Concurrent List
then such repugnant provision of the State law will be void.
Such a provision of law made by the State Legislature touching
upon a matter covered by the Concurrent List, will not be void
C if it can coexist and operate without repugnancy with "the
provisions of the existing law.
55. It needs no special emphasis to state that the issue
of repugnancy would also arise where the law made by the
Parliament and the law made by the State legislature occupy
D the same field. It has been so held in Sitaram & Bros. v.
State of Rajasthan".
56. In this context, reference to M.P. Shikshak Congress
(supra) would be fruitful. While repelling the plea of repugnancy,
E it has been held that under Article 254(1) of the Constitution, if
any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State is
repugnant to any provision of a law made by the Parliament,
which Parliament is competent to enact, then subject to the
provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether
F passed before or after the law made by the legislature of such
State shall prevail and the law made by the legislature of the
State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. The ordinary
rule, therefore, is that when both the State Legislature as well
as Parliament are competent to enact a law on a given subject,
G it is the law made by Parliament which will prevail. The
exception which is carved out is under sub-clause (2) of Article
254. Under this sub-clause (2), where a law made by the
legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision
27
H 1995(1)SCC257
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1099
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by A
Parliament, then the law so made by the legislature of such
State shall, if it has been reserved forthe consideration of the
President and has received his assent, prevail in the State.
57. Another aspect with regard to repugnancy and the
validity of the State legislation may be stated. If there is a B
parliamentary legislation and the law enacted by the State
legislation can co-exist and operate where one Act or the
other is not available, then there is no difficulty in making
the State law on the fact situation available. It has been so
held in EID Parry(/) Ltd. v. G Omkar Murthy and Others" C
and Saurashtra Oil Mills Assn. v. State of Gujarat". When
a situation crops up before the court pertaining to applicability
of a parliamentary legislation and any enactment or law
enacted by the State legislature for consideration, the effort
of the court should be to see that the provisions of both the D .
Acts are made applicable, as has ruled in /magic Creative
(PJ Ltd. v. cci"'.
58. Having stated the proposition where and in which
circumstances the principle of repugnancy would be attracted E
and the legislation can be saved or not saved, it is necessary
to focus on clause (2) of Article 254. In Hindustan Times v.
State of U.P.", after referring to the earlier judgments, it has
been held that clause 254(2) carves out an exception and, that
is, if the Presidential assent to a State law which has been F
reserved for his consideration is obtained under Article 200, it
will prevail notwithstanding the repugnancy to an earlier law of
the Union. The relevant passage of the said authority is
extracted below:-
"As noticed hereinbefore, the State of Uttar Pradesh G
intended to make a legislation covering the same
: (2001) 4 sec 68
:: ~~~~~l ~ ~gg
(2003) 1 sec
~~~
591 H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A field but even ifthe same was to be made, it would
have been subject to the parliamentary legislation
unless assent of the President of India was obtained
in that behalf. The State executive was, thus,
denuded of any power in respect of a matter with
B respect whereto Parliament has power to make
Jaws, as its competence was limited only to the
matters with respect to which the legislature of the
State has the requisite legislative competence.
Even assuming that the matter relating to the welfare
C of the working journalists is a field which falls within
Entry 24 of the Concurrent List, unless and until a
legislation is made and assent of the President is
obtained, the provisions of the 1955 Act and the
Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates and Wages)
D Act, 1958 would have prevailed over the State
enactment."
59. The issue in the instant case is that the State
Government had not complied with the requisite procedure
for obtaining the assent of the President. The criticism
E advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in
the letter written by the State Government to the competent
authority for obtaining assent only certain provisions of the
Orissa Act were mentioned but there is no reference to
other provisions and certain other legislations, which also
F cover the same field. To bolster the said submission, reliance
has been placed on the Constitution Bench decision in Kaiser-
1-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra
North) Ltd.". In the said case, the majority dealt with the
jurisdiction of the court is to see the record and nature of the
G assent sought by the State. The Court scanned the anatomy of
Article 254(2) and after analyzing the same, opined that it can
be stated that for the State law to prevail, the requirements
that are to be satisfied are; (a) law made by the legislature of
H " (2002) a sec 1a2
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1101
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
a State should be with respect to one of the matters A
enumerated in the Concurrent List; (b) it contains any provision
repugnant to the provision of an earlier law made by Parliament
or an existing law with respect to that matter; (c) the law so
made by the legislature of the State has been reserved for the
consideration of the President; and (d) it has received "his B
assent".
60. After so stating, the Court proceeded to lay down as
follows:-
"14. In view of the aforesaid requirements, before c
obtaining the assent of the President, the State
Government has to point out that the law made by
the State Legislature is in respect of one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List by
mentioning entry/entries of the Concurrent List and D
that it contains provision or provisions repugnant
to the law made by Parliament or existing law.
Further, the words "reserved for consideration"
would definitely indicate that there should be active
application of mind by the President to the E
repugnancy pointed out between the proposed
State law and the earlier law made by Parliament
and the necessity of having such a law, in the facts
and circumstances of the matter, which is repugnant
to a law enacted by Parliament prevailing in a State.
F
The word "consideration" would manifest that after
careful thinking over and due application of mind
regarding the necessity of having State law which
is repugnant to the law made by Parliament, the
President may grant assent. This aspect is further
G
reaffirmed by use of the word "assent" in clause
(2), which implies knowledge of the President to
the repugnancy between the State law and the
earlier law made by Parliament on the same
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A subject-matter and the reasons for grant of such
assent. The word "assent" would mean in the
context as an expressed agreement of mind to what
is proposed by the State.
x x x x x
B
20 .... As discussed above before grant of the
assent, consideration of the reasons for having
such law is necessary and the consideration would
mean consideration of the proposal made by the
c State for the law enacted despite it being repugnant
to the earlier law made by Parliament on the same
subject. If the proposal made by the State is limited
qua the repugnancy of the State law and law or laws
specified in the said proposal, then it cannot be
D said that the assent was granted qua the
repugnancy between the State law and other laws
for which no assent was sought for. Take for
illustration - that a particular provision, namely,
Section 3 of the State law is repugnant to enactment
E A made by Parliament; other provision, namely,
Section 4 is repugnant to some provisions of
enactment B made by Parliament and Sections 5
and 6 are repugnant to some provisions of
enactment C and the State submits proposal
seeking "assent" mentioning repugnancy between
F
the State law and provisions of enactments A and
B without mentioning anything with regard to
enactment C. In this set of circumstances, if the
assent of the President is obtained, the State law
with regard to enactments A and B would prevail
G
but with regard to C, there is no proposal and hence
there is no "consideration" or "assent". Proposal
by the State pointing out repugnancy between the
State law and of the law enacted by Parliament is a
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1103
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
sine qua non for "consideration" and "assent". If A
there is no proposal, no question of "consideration"
or "assent" arises. For finding out whether "assent"
given by the President is restricted or unrestricted,
the letter written or the proposal made by the State
Government for obtaining "assent" is required to B
be looked into:"
61. Proceeding further, the Court placed reliance on
P. N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kera/a" and Hoechst
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and ruled that it cannot be said
that the High Court committed any error in looking at the file of C
the correspondence Ext. F collectively for finding out - for
what purpose "assent" of the President to the extension of Acts
extending the duration of the Bombay Rent Act was sought for
and given. After so stating, the Court observed:-
D
"29. We further make it clear that granting of assent
under Article 254(2) is not exercise of legislative
power of the President such as contemplated under
Article 123 but is part of the legislative procedure.
· Whether procedure prescribed by the Constitution.
E
before enacting the law is followed or not can always
be looked into by the Court.
30. Finally, we would observe that the challenge of
this nature could be avoided if at the
commencement of the Act, it is stated that the Act F
has received the assent with regard to the
repugnancy between the State law and specified
Central law or laws."
62. In this regard, we may extract a passage from P.N.
Krishna Lal (supra) wherein the Court, after referring to the G
decision in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur v. Ma/winder
Singh" ruled that:- . · .
33
1995 Supp. (2) sec 187
,. (1985) 3 sec 661 H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A "... it is clear that this Court did not intend to hold
that it is necessary that in every case the assent of
the President in specific terms had to be sought
and given for special reasons in respect of each
enactment or provision or provisions. On the other
B hand, the observation clearly indicates that if the
assent is sought and given in general terms it would
be effective for all purposes. In other words, this
Court observed that the assent sought for and given
by the President in general terms could be effective
C for all purposes unless specific assent is sought
and given in which event it would be operative only
to that limited extent."
63. In Rajiv Sarin and Another v. State of
Uttarakhand and Others", another Constitution Bench
D adverted to the earlier pronouncements on the concept of
"assent of the President" including the authority in Kaiser-1-
Hind (P) Ltd. (supra) and observed that in the said case this
Court made it clear that it was not considering whether the
assent of the President was rightly or wrongly given; and
E whether the assent was given without considering the extent
and the nature of the repugnancy and should be taken as no
assent at all. In Rajiv Sarin (supra), the Court reproduced
paragraph 27 from Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. (supra), which is to
the following effect:-
F
"In this case, we have made it clear that we are not
considering the question that the assent of the
President was rightly or wrongly given. We are also
not considering the question that-whether 'assent'
given without considering the extent and the nature
G
of the repugnancy should be taken as no assent at
all. Further, in the aforesaid case, before the Madras
High Court also the relevant proposal made by the
H "(2011) s sec 10s
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1105
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
State was produced. The Court had specifically A
arrived at a conclusion that Ext. P-12 shows that
Section 10 of the Act has been referred to as the
provision which can be said to be repugnant to the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the
Transfer of Property Act, which are existing laws B
on the concurrent subject. After observing that, the
Court has raised the presumption. We do not think
that it was necessary to do so. In any case as
discussed above, the essential ingredients of
Article 254(2) are: ( 1) mentioning of the entry/ C
entries with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List; (2) stating
repugnancy to the provisions of an earlier law made
by Parliament and the State law and reasons for.
having such law; (3) thereafter it is required to be D
reserved for consideration of the President; and (4)
receipt of the assent of the President."
64. Thereafter, the Constitution Bench referred to
paragraph 65 of the authority in Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. (supra)
wherein it has been stated that "pointed attention" of the E
President is required to be drawn to the repugnancy and the
reasons for having such a law, despite the enactment by
Parliament, has to be understood. After reproducing paragraph
· 65 in entirety, the larger Bench in Rajiv Sarin (supra)
observed:- F
"64. If it is to be contended that Kaiser(supra) lays
down the proposition that there can be no general
Presidential assent, then such an interpretation
would be clearly contrary to the observation of the
G
Bench in para 27 itself where it states that it is not
examining the issue whether such an assent can
be taken as an assent.
H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 65. Such an interpretation would also open the
judgment to a charge of being, with respect, per
incuriam as even though while noting the Jamalpur
case (supra), it overlooks the extracts in Jamalpur
case (supra) dealing with the aspect of general
B assent: (SCC p. 669, para 12)
"12 . ... The assent of the President under Article
254(2) of the Constitution is not a matter of idle
formality. The President has, at least, to be
apprised of the reason why his assent is sought
c if, there is any special reason for doing so. If the
assent is sought and given in general terms so
as to be effective for all purposes, different
considerations may legitimately arise. But if, as
in the instant case, the assent of the President
D is sought to the law for a specific purpose, the
efficacy of the assent would be limited to that
purpose and cannot be extended beyond it."
65. Having delved into the principle of obtaining assent,
E the controversy at hand is required to be dealt with on the
touchstone of the said principles. The competent authority of
the State had written to the appropriate authority for obtaining
assent. We think it apt to reproduce the said letter:-
"N. Sanyal, IAS
F Commissioner-cum-Secretary
To Governor, Orissa,
No. 7876/SC(Con)
Dated the 28 October 2006
G To,
The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi-1
H Sub: Proposal to obtain assent of the President of
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1107
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
India under Article 254(2) of the Constitution A
of India to the Orissa Special Courts Bill, 2006
Sir,
I am directed to say that in order to tackle the menace of
corruption in public life and since the existing courts lack B
necessary machineries for speedy termination of the trial
of the offences under Clause (e) of sub section (1 )of
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it
is considered necessary to establish Special Courts by
enacting a Special legislation. Accordingly, the "Orissa C
Special Courts Bill, 2006" was passed by the State
Legislature on 11.8.2006.
2. The Bill seeks to enable the State Government to
establish Special Courts to be presided over by the
persons who are or have been Session Judge in the State D
for trial of offences committed under Clause (e) of sub-
section (1) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. To eradicate corruption from high public and
political offices properties alleged to have been acquired
out of such alleged corruption need to be confiscated. E
So for confiscation of property of the alleged offender,
provision has been made for appointment of authorized
officer who is or has been an Additional Session Judge.
3. The sub matter of Legislation is relatable to Entry 11-
A read with Entries 1 and 2 of List Ill (Concurrent List) of F
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Accordingly,
the State Legislature has enacted the said law. But the
provisions contained in Clauses 6, 7. 22 and 26 of the
Bill are repugnant to the existing provisions of certain
laws, namely, the prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. the G
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944. therefore. the Bill as
passed by the State Legislature is required to be reserved
for the consideration and assent of the President of India
H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
4. It is further stated that the aforesaid Bill is similar to
the Orissa $pecial Courts Act, 1990 earlier assented
to by the President of India under Article 254(2) of the
Constitution,, But it was subsequently repealed by the
G
Orissa Special Courts (Repent and Special Provision)
Act, 199f'.
5. The Goverliv1 of Orissa has been pleased to reserve
the Bill for consideration and assent of the President of
c India under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
6. Three authenticated copies of the Governor of Orissa
alongwith another six copies of such Bill as introduced
and passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly are
forwarded herewith, which may kindly be placed before
D
the President of India for favour of his kind consideration
and assent.
7. The authenticated copies of the Bill may kindly be
returned after the assent of the President is obtained at
E any earlier date. Six copies of the letter of the State
Government are enclosed for your reference.
8. A Certificate in the prescribed proforma is also
enclosed.
F Encl: As above yours faithfully,
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to
the Governor, Orissa"
[emphasis supplied]
G
66. On a perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is demonstrable
that the State Government had sought assent of the President
in respect of certain provisions of the 1988 Act, the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Criminal Law Amendment
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1109
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Ordinance, 1944. On a ~crutiny of the judgment of the High A
Court, it is manifest that on behalf of the State certain
communications were placed on record from which the High
Court was satisfied that the assent had been properly obtained.
In the course of hearing, we have also found that the entire Bill
was sent for the assent with the aforesaid forwarding letter B
and there has been correspondence thereafter. On a perusal
of tile communication and the finding recorded by the High
Court and keeping in view the purpose of communication and
taking note of the fact that the entire Bill was sent to the
President for obtaining assent, it can safely be concluded that C
the President was apprised of the reason when the assent
was sought. The assent has been given in general terms so
as to be effective.for all purposes. It cannot be said that the
qeneral assent by the President was not obtained. Thus, we
Jre of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Orissa D
Act are definitely not repugnant to the 1988 Act, the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944.
67. It is submitted that there is repugnancy between
Orissa Act and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. E
It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that
whatever has been mentioned in the letter or other provisions
may not be repugnant but definitely the Act is repugnant to
Cther enactment like the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,
7002, as amended in 2009. It has been stated by the F
Constitution Bench in M. Karunanidhi (supra) that in order to
decide the question of repugnancy it must be shown (i) that
the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable
provision so that they cannot stand together or operate in the
same field; (ii) that there can be no repeal by implication unless G
the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes; (iii)
that where the two statues occupy a particular field, but there
is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same
filed without coming into collusion with each other, no
H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A repugnancy results; (iv) that where there is no inconsistency
but the statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct
and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and
both the statute continue to operate in the same field.
68. In J.B. Educational Society(supra)the Court, after
8 referring to M. Karunanidhi (supra), laid down the following
principle:-·
"Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I,
c notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (2) and
(3) of Article 246. The non obstante clause under Article
246( 1) indicates the predominance or supremacy of the
law made by the Union
Legislature in the event of an overlap of the law made
D by Parliament with respect to a matter enumerated in
List I and a law made by the State Legislature with
respect to a matter enumerated in List II of the Seventh
Schedule."
69. On the principles enumerated' in the aforesaid
E pronouncements, the submissions put forth by the learned
counsel are to be appreciated. The Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act was enacted in 2002 and an amendment was
brought in 2009. We may refer to the objects and reasons of
F the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 which read as
follows:-
"An Act to prevent money-laundering and to provide for
confiscation of property derived from, or involved in,
money-laundering and for matters connected therewith
G or incidental thereto ... "
70. Section 2(p) defines "money laundering" and Section
3 which has connection with Section 2(p) defines "offence of
money laundering". Sections 3 and 4 read as follows:-
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1111
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"Section 3. Offence of money-laundering.- A
Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or
knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually·
involved in any process or activity connected with
proceeds of crime including its concealment,
possession, acquisition or use and projecting or B
claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of
offence of money-laundering.
Section 4. Punishment for money-laundering.-
Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall
be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term c
which shall not be less than three years but which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in
money-laundering relates to any offence specified under D
· paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of
this section shall have effect as if for the words "which
may extend to seven years", the words "which may
extend to ten years" had been substituted."
71. Section 5, which provides for attachment of property E
involved in the money laundering, stipulates that where the
Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy
Director authorised by the Director for the purposes of this
section, has reason to believe, on the basis of material in his
possession, that (a) any person is in possession of any_ F
proceeds of crime; and (b) such proceeds of crime are likely
to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which
may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to
confiscation of such proceeds of crime under Chapter Ill, he
may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for G
a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the
date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed, •
provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless,
in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been
H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A forwarded to a Magistrate under section ~ 73 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974), ora complaint has been
· filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence
mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for
taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may
B be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed
under the corresponding law of any other country; provided
further that, notwithstanding anything contained in first proviso,
any property of any person may be attached under this section
if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy
C Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has
reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded
in writing) on the basis of material in his possession, that if
such property involved in money-laundering is not attached
immediately under Chapter Ill, the non-attachment of the
D property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.
Sub-section (2) provides that the Director, or any other officer
not below the rank of Deputy Director, shall, immediately after
attachment under sub-section ( 1), forward a copy of the order,
along with the material in his possession, referred to in that
E sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed
envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such
Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for
such period as may be prescribed. Sub-section (3) provides
that every order of attachment made under sub-section ( 1) shall
F cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in
· that sub-section or on the date of an order made under sub-
section (2) of section 8, whichever is earlier and sub-section
(4) says that nothing in this section shall prevent the person
interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached
G under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment. Sub-section (5)
stipulates that the Director or any other officer who provisionally
attaches any property under sub-section (1) shall, within a
period of thirty days from such attachment, file a complaint
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1113
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
stating the facts of such attachment before the Adjudicating A
Authority.
72. Section 8 deals with adjudication and provides that
(1) on receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section
5, or ap"plications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or
under subsection ( 10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority 8
has reason to believe that any person has committed an
offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of
crime, he may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on
such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his
income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which C
he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1)
of section 5, or, seized 2 or frozen under section 17 or section
18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant
information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any
of such properties should not be declared to be the properties D
involved in-money-laundering and confiscated by the Central
Government. There are certain provisions appended to the
said Section. Sub-section 2 stipulates that the Adjudicating
Authority shall, after considering the reply, if any, to the notice
issued under subsection (1) and hearing the aggrieved person E
and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this
behalf, and taking into account all relevant materials placed
on record before him, by an order, record a finding whether all
or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under
sub-section (1) are involved in money-laundering. Thereafter, F
the provisions of the said Act deal with the adjudication by the
Adjudicating Authority as regards the property involved in the
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, confirmation of
attachment of property or retention or freezing of the property,
taking over of the possession by the competent authority, the G
order to be passed by the Special Court after conclusion of
the trial of the offence, the resultant effect where the Special
Court finds the offence of money laundering has not taken
place, the circumstances in which the property would vest in
H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A the Central Government free from all encumbrances, the
management of confiscated properties during the interregnum
period, the role of the Administrator, the power of Central
Government to dispose of the property, the role attributed to
various authorities to conduct search and seizure at various
B places, the action to be taken in a situation while it is not
practical to seize a frozen property, the procedure for seizure
and power of arrest, etc.
73. Section 20 of the said Act deals with retention of
property. The said provision stipulates about the authority who
C can seize and freeze money to a maximum period and
eventually pass a final order. Section 25 deals with
establishment of an Appellate Tribunal and Section 26 provides
for appeal to the said Tribunal. Section 42 provides for appeal
to the High Court from the order passed by the Tribunal.
D Section 43 provides for designation of Special Courts. The
said provision being relevant is reproduced below:-
"Section 43. Special Courts.-( 1) The Central
Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice
E of the High Court, shall, for trial of offence
punishable under section 4, by notification,
designate one or more Courts of Session as
Special Court or Special Courts for such area or
areas or for such case or class or group of cases
as may be specified in the notification.
F
Explanation.-ln this sub-section, "High Court"
means the High Court of the State in which a
Sessions Court designated as Special Court was
functioning immediately before such designation.
(2) While trying an offence underthisAct, a Special
G
Court shall also try an offence, other than an offence
referred to in sub-section (1 ), with which the
accused may, under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the
same trial.
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1115
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
74. Section 44 provides for offences triable by Special A
Courts. Section 47 provides for appeal to the High Court
against the judgment passed by the Special Courts. Chapter
IX of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 deals with
reciprocal arrangement for assistance in certain matters and
procedure for attachment and confiscation of property. Section B
55 occurring in this Chapter is a dictionary clause which defines
the tenms "contracting State", "identifying" and "tracing". Section
56 mentions about the agreement with the foreign countries ..
Sections 57 to 61 deal with range of topics where concepts of
reciprocal arrangement arid letter of request are involved. C
Chapter X which is miscellaneous chapter provides for
punishment of vexatious search. Section 70 deals with offences
by companies and Section 71 occurring in this Chapter
captioned as "Miscellaneous" is with regard to the overriding
effect and it clearly lays down that 'The provisions of this Act D
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force."
7 5.. Be it stated that the Prevention of Money-Laundering
Act, 2002 contains Schedules which originally contained three
Parts, namely, Part A, Part Band Part C. Part A which contains E
various paragraphs enumerates offences under the Indian
Penal Code, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, etc. Part B (Containing Para 1 to Para
25) was omitted by Act 2 of 2013, section 30(ii) (w.e.f. 15-
2-2013, vide S.O. 343(E), dated 8-2-2013) and earlier Part B F
was amended by Act 21 of 2009, section 13(ii) (w.e.f. 1-6-
2009). Part C deals with an offence which is the offence of
cross border impliqitions and is specified in Part A or the
offences against property under Chapter XVII of the Indian
Penal Code. G
76. At this juncture, it is appropriate to note that in 2009,
the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was a(Tlended
whereby the offences under Section 13 of the 1988 Act was
incorporated in Part B of the Schedule. It may be mentioned H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A that same has been deleted in 2013 inasmuch as the entire
Part B has been deleted. The High Court in the impugned
judgment has referred to Entries 93 and 44 of the Union List
whereby the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 has
been brought into force. The High Court has also taken note of
B the fact that the OrissaAct was enacted in 2007 regard being
had to the 1988 Act. The High Court has observed that the
Prevention of Money- Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 upon
which reliance is placed by the petitioners counsel therein
cannot prevail upon either the 1988 Act or the Orissa Act.
c 77. We have analysed the scheme under the Prevention
of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It is clearly demonstrable that
the offences under the said Act are different from an offence
under the 1988Act. The offence under the OrissaAct which
has been carved out is the offence under Section 13(1 )(e) of
0
the 1988 Act and the Orissa Act provides for establishment of
Special Courts and also provides for provisions pertaining to
confiscation at an interim stage. The entire Prevention of
Money-Laundering Act, 2002, if keenly scrutinized, clearly
E reveals that it deals with different situations altogether; a
different offence which has insegregable nexus with money
laundering. True it is, in 2009 an amendment was brought
incorporating the 1988Act in Part B of the Schedule, and the
said Part B has been totally deleted in 2013. In view of the
F same, the submission of the learned counsel for the State is
that after deletion of Part B the issue has become academic.
Be that as it may, Part B of the Prevention of Money-Laundering
Act, 2002 enumerated offences under the Indian Penal Code,
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;
G The Explosive Substances Act, 1908; The Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967; The Arms Act, 1959; The Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972; etc. There was a purpose behind the
same. There could be offences under the Prevention of Money-
LaunderingAct, 2002 arising from the offences under the other
H Acts. Unless an offence under the Money Laundering Act, 2002
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1117
[DIPAK MISRA, J.)
is committed and taken cognizance of by the authorities, the A
offences under the other Acts can continue as that is the law in
the field. Once there is money laundering, the accused may
be tried by the Special Courts as provided under the said
Act. PartAenumerates offences under the Central legislation
and certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. The first B
condition precedent is that the offence committed must pertain
to money laundering. If a person is tried under Section 13( 1)(e)
satisfies the ingredients of money laundering, the matter would
be different and hence, both the Acts can harmoniously co-
exist. C
78. In view of the aforesaid analysis and keeping in view
the law pertaining to repugnancy we have hereinbefore referred
to, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants that there is repugnancy between
the two Acts and the Orissa Act is invalid as no assent was D
obtained in respect of the Prevention of Money-Laundering
Act, 2002. We may hasten to clarify that we have not addressed
the issue on the impact of the deletion of Part B of the Schedule
in 2013 as the legislature may have deleted it in its own
wisdom. E
79. Next, we shall advert to the assail made in respect of
certain provisions of the Orissa Act. Attack on two provisions,
namely, Section 5 and 6, is basically on Article 14 and Article
20( 1) of the Constitution. We shall first address to the challenge F
made under Article 14 and thereafter deal with the assail under
Article 20(1) while we will be addressing the constitutional
validity of other provisipns, for it has been contended before
us by the learned counsel for the appellants that the provisions
pertaining to confiscation and other matters are punishments G
at the pre-trial stage and hence, the person suffers from double
jeopardy. That apart, it is urged, confiscation was not there at
time cif institution of the prosecution and, therefore, the
amended law cannot be retrospectively applied. It has been
further argued that the submission of the State that there is H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A only a procedural change as no one has a right to the forum is
absolutely unsustainable and the appellants have been
aggrieved by the substantive part and not by the facet relating
to adjective law.
80. The principal ground of attack of the said provisions
8 is that the legislature has not defined persons who have held
"high public or political office". According to them, in the
absence of any definition, it is extremely arbitrary and confers
unbridled powers on the State Government and that apart, it is
quite vague as a consequence of which, it invites the frown of
c Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the State,
per contra, has drawn our attention to the objects and reasons
of the Act and has propounded that the concept of high public
or political office is well understood and the provision does
pot deserve to be struck down solely on the ground that there
D is no definition of the said words in the dictionary clause.
81. Be it stated, the definition in the rules have been
pressed into service. We need not look at the rules, for we
have to find out whether in the provision in the context of the
E legislation and the purpose it intends to serve, there is enough
guidance not to allow any kind of arbitrariness. To appreciate
the said contention, we are obligated to refer to Section 2(d)
of the Orissa Act which defines the term 'offence' which reads
as follows:-
F "Section 2{d). "Offence" means an offence of
criminal misconduct within the meaning of clause
(e) of sub-section ( 1) of section 13 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988."
82. Section 5 and Section 6 of the Orissa Act read as
G
follows:-
"Section 5. Declaration of cases to be dealt
with underthisAct-(1) If the State Government
is of the opinion that there is prima facie evidence
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1119
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
of the commission of an offence alleged to have A
been committed by a person, who held high public
or political office in the State of Orissa, the State ·
Government shall make a declaration to the effect
in every case in which it is of the aforesaid opinion.
B
(2) Such declaration shall not be called in question
•
in any Court."
Section 6. Effect of declaration - ( 1) On such
declaration being made, notwithstanding anything
in the Code or any other law for the time being in c
force, any prosecution in respect of the offence
shall be instituted only in a Special Court.
(2) Where any declaration made under section 5
relates to an offence in respect of which a
prosecution has already been instituted and the D
proceedings in relation thereto are pending in a
Court other than Special Court, such proceedings
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, stand
transferred to Special Court for trial of the offence E
in accordance with this Act."
83. The stand of the learned counsel for the appellants is
that Section 5 of the Orissa Act confers uncanalised and
unfettered discretion on the State Government to make a
declaration as a consequence of which the delinquent officer F
will have to face the prosecution in the Special Court. No
guidance has been provided and in the absence of any
guidance, the exercise of power would be arbitrary and the
State Government is at liberty to pick and choose any person
as it desires. The impugned judgment would show that the G
State Government had filed an affidavit on 23.7.2010 and the
High Court has quoted certain paragraphs from the said
affidavit. The relevant part of the affidavit shows that in the event
there is prima facie evidence of the commission of an offence
H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A alleged to have been committed by a person who held high
public or political office in the State of Orissa as defined under
the Act and the Rules, the State Government shall mandatorily
make a declaration to that effect and the State Government
does not have any discretion on the subject. It has also been
B asserted that the role of the State Government is limited to be
satisfied that the ingredients of Section 5(1) of the Special
Courts Act are existent and if the ingredients of Section 5(1)
of the Special Courts Act are in existence, the State
Government is bound to make a declaration to that effect.
C Placing reliance on the said affidavit, the High Court has
repelled the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners
therein. We must say without any reservation that the approach
of the High Court i~ erroneous. Constitutionality of a provision
has to be tested within the constitutional parameters. An
D affidavit filed by an officer of the State Government cannot
change the interpretation if it is textually and contextually not
permissible. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association and Another v. Union of/ndia", while dealing
with the term "fit" expressed under Section 5(1) of the National
E Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, the Court noted
the submissions of the learned Attorney General that the said
word would only mean mental and physical fitness, and nothing
else. Commenting on the said submission, Khehar, J. stated
as follows:-
F • ... The present wisdom, cannot bind future
generations. And, it was exactly for this reason,
that the respondents could resile from the statement
mad.e by the then Attorney General, before the
Bench hearing the Third Judges case, thatthe Union
G of India was not seeking a review or reconsideration
of the judgment in the Second Judges case (that, it
had accepted to treat as binding, the decision in
the Second Judges case). And yet, during the
H "2015 (11) SCALE 1
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1121
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
course of hearing of the present case, the Union of A
India did seek a reconsideration of the Second
Judges case."
84. In this regard, a passage from Sanjeev Coke
Manufacturing Company v. Mis Bharat Coking Coal
Limited and Another' would be apt to quote:- 8
"... The deponents of the affidavits filed into court
may speak for the parties on whose behalf they
swear to the statements. They do not speak for the
Parliament. No one may speak for the Parliament c
and Parliament is never before the court. After
Parliament has said what it intends to say, only the
court may say what the Parliament meant to say.
None else. Once a statute leaves Parliament
House, the Court is the only authentic voice which D
may echo (interpret) the Parliament. This the court
will do with reference to the language of the statute
and other permissible aids. The executive
Government may place before the court their
understanding of what Parliament has said or
E
intended to say or what they think was Parliament's
object and all the facts and circumstances which in
their view led to the legislation. When they do so,
they do not speak for Parliament. No Act of
Parliament may be struck down because of
F
the understanding or misunderstanding of
parliamentary intention by the executive
Government or because their (the Government's)
spokesmen do not bring out relevant circumstances
but indulge in empty and self-defeating affidavits.
G
· They do not and they cannot bind Parliament.
Validity of legislation is not to be judged merely by
affidavits filed on behalf of the State, but by all the
relevant circumstances which the court may
37
(1983) 1 sec 147 H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A ultimately find and more especially by what may be
gathered from what the legislature has itself said .....
• 85. We have referred the said statement of law only to
highlight that the affidavit sworn by the Joint Secretary could
not have been relied upon by the High Court for the purpose of
B construction of Section 5 of the OrissaAct. Thus viewed, we
have to understand, appreciate and interpret the provisions
contained in Section 5 and Section 6 whether there is any
scope for arbitrary use of power.
c 86. The language employed in Section 5 has to be
appositely scrutinized. Section 5(1 ) of the Orissa Act provides
that if the State Government is of the opinion that there is prima
facie evidence of the commission of an offence alleged to have
been committed by a person, who held high public or political
0 office in the State of Orissa, the State Government shall make
a declaration to the effect in every case in which it is of the
aforesaid opinion. The Division Bench of the High Court on
earlier occasion in Kishore Chandra Patel (supra) had struck
down the part that stated "and that the said offence ought to
E be dealt with under the Act" and treated the rest of it as valid.
The legislature, as is perceptible, has rightly deleted the said
· words. Interpretation of the stipulations in Section 5 are to be
appreciated in the context of the scheme of the Orissa Act.
Section 2(d) defines the term "offence" which means an
F "offence" of criminal misconduct within the meaning of clause
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the 1988 Act. Section
5(1) confers power on the State to form an opinion that there
is prima facie evidence of commission of an offence alleged
to have been committed by a person who has held high public
G or political office in the State of Orissa and then proceed to
make the declaration to that effect. The key words, as we find,
are "prima facie evidence of the commission of the offence
alleged". In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General
Finance and Investment Co. Ltd." it has been ruled that
38
H AIR 1987 SC 1023
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1123
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
interpretation must depend on the text and the context and they A
must form the basis of interpretation. The two-Judge Bench
speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has expressed that:-
" ... A statute is best interpreted when we know why
it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute
B
must be read, first as a whole and then section by
section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and
word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context
of its enactment, with the glasses of the
statutemaker, provided by such context, its scheme,
the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take
c
colour and appear different than when the statute
is looked at without the glasses pr 0 vided by the
context. With these glasses we must look at the Act
as a whole and discover what each section, each
D
clause, each phrase and each word is meant and
designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the
entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a
statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have
to be construed so that every word has a place and
E
everything is in its place ... "
87. In Union oflndia v. Filip Tiago De Gama ofVedem
Vasco De Gama" the Court has held that:-
"The paramount object in statutory interpretation is
to discover what the legislature intended. This F
intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text
of enactment in question. That does not mean the
text is to be construed merely as a piece of prose,
without reference to its nature or purpose. A statute
is neither a literary text nor a divine revelation. G
'Words are certainly not crystals, transparent and
.unchanged" as Mr Justice Holmes has wisely and
properly warned. (Towne v. Eisner, 245 US 418,
" 1990AIR 981 H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 425 (1918). Learned Hand, J., was equally
emphatic when he said: "Statutes should be
construed, not as theorems of Euclid, but with
some imagination of the purposes which lie behind
them." (Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage, 218
B FR 547, 553)."
88. In R.L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others••
the Constitution Bench dealt with the validity of amendments
to LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 as amended by Act 31of1962.
The challenge therein was to the amendments of certain
C . provisions in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While dealing
with the concept of construction of a provision, the Court opined
that a literal interpretation is not always the only interpretation
of a provision in a statute and the court has to look at the setting
in which the words are used and the circumstances in which
D the law came to be passed to decide whether there is
something implicit behind the words actually used which would
control the literal meaning, of the words used in a provision of
the statute. The Court further ruled that it is permissible to
control the wide language used in a statute ifthat is possible
E by the setting in which the words are used and the intention of
the law-making body which may be apparent from the
circumstances in which the particular provision came to be
made, and therefore, a literal and mechanical interpretation is
not the only interpretation which courts are bound to give to
F · the words of a statute; and it may be possible to control the
wide 'language in which a provision is made by taking into
account what is implicit in it in view of the setting in which the
provision appears and the circumstances in which itmight have
been enacted.
G
89. In TATA Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v.
State of Bihar and Another" emphasis was laid as regards
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1125
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
the purposes which lie behind the words and to be too literal A
in the· meaning of words is to see the skin and miss the soul. ·
90. In this regard, a passage from the Statutory
Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, gth Edn. 2004, at p. 86,
would throw immense insight:-
" No word", says PROFESSOR H.A. SMITH "has B
an absolute meaning, for no words can be defined
in vacuo, or without reference to some context".
According to SUTHERLAND there is a "basic
fallacy" in saying "that words have meaning in and
of themselves", and "reference to the abstract c
meaning of words", states CRAIES, "if there be any
such thing, is of little value in interpreting statures".
In the words of JUSTICE HOLMES : "A word is not
a crystal transparent and unchanged; it is the skin
of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour p
and content according to the circumstances and
the time in which it is used." Shorn of the context,
the words by themselves are "slippery customers".
Therefore, in determining the meaning of any word
or phrase in a statute the first question to be asked E
is "what is the natural or ordinary meaning of that
word or phrase in its context in the statute? It is
only when that meaning leads to some result which
cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the
intention of the legislature that it is proper to look F
for some other possible meaning of the word or
phrase". The context as already seen in the
construction of statures means the statute as a
whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes
in pari materia, the general scope of the statute G
and the mischief that it was intended to remedy."
91. In Union of India v. Sanka/chand Himatla/ Sheth",
Bhagwati, J. opined as follows:-
42
(1977) 4 sec 193 H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
· A "I mean it in its widest sense 'as including not only other
enacting provisions of the same statute but its preamble, the
existing state of the law. other statutes in pari materia and the
mischief which - the statute was intended to remedy' ".
92. The concept of context has also been emphasised
8 in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P.".
93. Apart from the aforesaid interpretation. we are also
of the view that regard being had to the text. context and the
legislative intendment, the principle of reading down can be
c applied to save it from the constitutional invalidity. May it be
mentioned that there are certain authorities which have held
that such provisions are valid when the power is vested with
high authority and there is guidance in the language employed
in the provision. But we prefer to take this route as we find the
0 legislature never intended to leave any offender. In Shreya
Singhal v. Union oflndia". the Court upheld the constitutional
validity of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
subject to Section 79(3)(b) by stating as follows:-
"Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b)
E being read down to mean that an intermediary upon
receiving actual knowledge from a court order or
on being notified by the appropriate government"
or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article
19(2) are going to be committed then fails to
F expeditiously remove or disable access to such
material. Similarly. the Information Technology
"Intermediary Guidelines" Rules, 2011 are valid
subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in
the same manner as indicated in the judgment."
G 94. A passage from DTC v. Mazdoor Congress" is also
fruitful to extract:-
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE !JF BIHAR 1127
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
_ "...The doctrine of reading down or of recasting the A
statute can be applied in limited situations. It is
ess"entially used, firstly, for saving a sw_tute
from being struck down on account of its
unconstitutionality. It is an extension of the principle
that when two interpretations are possible-one B
rendering it constitutional and the other making it
unconstitutional, the former should be preferred. The
unconstitutionality may spring from either the
incompetence of the legislature to enact the statute
or from its violation of any of the provisions of the C
Constitution. The second situation which summons .
its aid is where the provisions of the statute are
vague and ambiguous and it is possible to gather
the intentions of the legislature from. the object of
the statute, the context in which the provision occurs D
and the purpose for which it is made ... "
95. In Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Naz Foundatiot.
the Court held that:-
"Another significant 8canon of determination of E
constitutionality is that the courts would be reluctant
to declare a law invalid or ultra vires on account of
unconstitutionality. The courts would accept an
interpretation, which would be in favour of
constitutionality rather than the one which would
F
rerder the law unconstitutional. Declaring the law
unconstitutional is one of the last resorts ta ken by
the courts. The courts would preferably put into
service the principle of "reading down" or "reading
into" the provision to make it effective, workable
G
and ensure the attainment-Of the object ·of the Act".
96. In Calcutta Gujarati Education Societyv. Calcutta
Municipal Corporation", it has been held that:-
46(2014) 1 sec 1
47
(2003) 1a sec 533 H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A "The rule of "reading down" a provision of law is
now well recognised. It is a rule of harmonious
construction in a different name. It is resorted to
smoothen the crudities or ironing out the creases
found in a statute to make it workable. In the garb
B of "reading down", however, it is not open to read
words and expressions not found in it and thus
venture into a kind of]udicial legislation. The rule of
reading down is to be used for the limited purpose
of making a particular provision workable and to
C bring it in harmony with other provisions of the
statute. It is to be used keeping in view the scheme
of the statute and to fulfill its purposes".
97. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities only to
highlight that the interpretation placed by us can come within
D both the conceptions, namely, textual and contextual
interpretation as well as also reading down the provision to
save it from unconstitutionality. Be it stated, by such reading
down no distortion is caused. .
E 98. Applying the aforesaid principle, we are inclined to
think that the State Government is only to be prima facie
satisfied that there is an offence under Section 13(1 )(e) and
the accused has held high public or political office in the State.
Textually understanding, the legislation has not clothed the State
F Government with the authority to scrutinize the material for any
other purpose. The State Government has no discretion except
to see whether the offence comes under Section 13(1) (e) or
not. Such an interpretation flows when it is understood that in
the entire texture provision turns around the words "offence
G alleged" and "prima facie". It can safely be held that the State
Government before making a declaration is only required to
see whether the person as understood in the context of the
provision is involved in an offence under Section 13(1 )(e) of
the Orissa Act and once that is seen, the concerned authority
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1129
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
has no other option but to make a declaration. That is the A
command of the legislature and once the declaration is made,
the prosecution has to be instituted in a Special Court and that
is the mandate of Section 6(1) of the Orissa Act. Therefore,
while holding that the reference to the affidavit filed by the State
Government was absolutely unwarranted, for that cannot make B
a provision constitutional if it is otherwise unconstitutional, we
would uphold the constitutional validity, but on the base of
above interpretation. The argument and challenge would fail,
once on interpretation it is held that there is no element of
discretion and only prima facie satisfaction is required as laid C
down hereinabove.
99. Having said that, we shall dwell upon the argument
which is raised with regard to classification part, that is, that
the persons holding "high public or political office" are being
put in a different class to face a trial in a different court under D
a different procedure facing different consequences, is arbitrary
and further the provision suffers from serious vagueness. The
other aspect which has been seriously pyramided by the
learned counsel for the appellants pertains to transfer of cases
to the Special Court once declaration is made. E
100. Learned counsel for the State has also referred to
the rules to show that to avoid any kind of confusion a definition
has been introduced in the rules. It is obligatory to make it
immediately clear that the argument of the State that by virtue F
of bringing in a set of rules defining the term "high public or
political office" takes away the provision from the realm of
challenge of Article 14 of the Constitution is not correct. In this
regard Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel forthe appellants,
has drawn our attention to the authority in Hotel Ba/aji and G
Others v. State of A.P. and Others' . In the said case, a
question arose as to how far it is permissible to refer to the
rules made in an Act while judging the legislative competency
of a legislature to enact a particular provision. In that context,
"1993 supp (4) sec 536 H
. 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A the majority speaking through Ranganathan, J. observed that
a subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the purview of
the Act. The learned Judge noted that where the Act says that
rules on being made shall be deemed "as if enacted in this
Act", the position may be different. Thereafter, the learned
B Judge said that where the Act does not say so, the rules do
not become a part of the Act. A passage from Halsbury's Laws
of England (3rd Edn.) Vol. 36 at page 401 was referred to. It
was contended on behalf of the State of Gujarat that the opinion
expressed by Hedge J. in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of/ndia",
C a dissenting opinion was pressed into service. The larger
Bench dealing with the said submission expressed the view:-
"... Shri Mehta points out further that Section 86
which confers the rule-making power upon the
Government does not say that the rules when made
D shall be treated as if enacted in the Act. Being a
rule made by the Government, he says, Rule 42-E
can be deleted, amended or modified at any time.
In such a situation, the legislative competence of a
legislature to enact a particular provision in the Act
E cannot be made to depend upon the rule or rules,
as the case may be, obtaining at a given point of
time, he submits. We are inclined to agree with the
learned counsel. His submission appears to
represent the correct principle in matters where the
F legislative competence of a legislature to enact a
particular provision arises. If so, the very foundation
of the appellants' argument collapses."
101. From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that unless the
G Act provides that the rules if deemed as enacted in the Act, a
provision of the rule cannot be read as a part of the Act.
102. In the instant case,.Section 24 lays down that the
State Government may, by notification, make such rules, if any,"
H "AIR1970SC1173
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1131
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
as it may deem necessary for carrying out the purposes gf this A
Act. The said provision is not akin to what has been referred
to in the case in Hotel Balaji (supra). True it is, the said
decision was rendered in the case of legislative competence
but it has been cited to highlight that unless the condition as
mentioned therein is satisfied, rules cannot be treated as a B
part of the Act. Thus analysed, the submission of the learned
counsel for the State that the Rules have clarified t.he position
and that dispels the apprehension of exercise of arbitrary
power, does not deserve acceptance.
103. Having not accepted the aforesaid submission, we C
shall proceed to deal with the real thrust of the submission on
this score. It is urged by Mr. Pad hi, learned senior counsel for
the State of Odisha, that the principles stated in the decision
in 11.C. Shukla (supra) will apply on all fours.
D
104. In the Special Courts Bill, 1978 (supra), may it be
noted, the President of India had made a reference to this Court
under Article 143( 1) of the Constitution for consideration of
the question whether the Special Courts Bill, 1978 (or any of
its other provisions) if enacted would be constitutionally invalid. E
The Court referred to the text of the preamble. The preamble
of the Bill was meant to provide for trial of a certain class of
offences. Clause 4 of the Act which is relevant for the present
purpose, provided that if the Central Government is of the
opinion that there is prima facie evidence of the commission F
of an offence alleged to have been committed during the period
mentioned in the Preamble by a person who held high public
or political office in India and that in accordance with the
guidelines contained in the Preamble, the said offence ought
to be dealt with under the Act, the Central Government shall G
make a declaration to that effect in every case in which it is of
the aforesaid opinion.
105. It was contended that Section 4(1) furnished no
guidance for making the declaration forae·ciding who one and
H
,
1132 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 14 S.C.R.
A for what reasons should be sent up for trial to the Special Courts.
The Court referred to the various statutes with regard to
dassification and the concept of guidance and vagueness and
opined that:-
• ... By clause 5 of the Bill, only those offences can
B . be tried by the Special Courts in respect of which
' the Central Government has made a declaration ·
under clause 4(1 ). That declaration can be made
·by the Central Government only if it is of the opinion
that there is prima ·facie evidence of the
c · commission of an offence, during the period
mentioned in the preamble, by a person who held
a high public or political office in India and that, in
accordance with the guide-lines contained in the
Preamble to the Bill, the said offence ought to be
D dealt with under the Act. The classification which
Section 4(1) thus makes is both of offences and
. offenders, the. former in relation to. the period
mentioned. in the preamble that is to say, from
February 27, 1975 until the expiry of the
E proclamation of emergency dated June 25, 1975
and in relation to the objective mentioned in the sixth ·
para of the preamble that it is imperative for the.
functioning of parliamentary democracy and the
institutions created by or under the Constitution of ·
F India that the commission of such offences should
be judicially determined with the utmost dispatch;
and the latter in relation to their status, that is to
·say, in relation to the high public or political office
held by them in India. It is only if both of these factors
G co-exist that the prosecution in respect of the
offences committed by the particular offenders can ·
be instituted in the Special Court." · ·
106. Thereafter, the Court referred to certain periods as
H mentioned in the preamble arid in that context, opined that:-
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1133
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
" But persons possessing widely differing A
characteristic, in the context of their situation in
relation to the period of their activities, cannot by
any reasonable criterion be herded in the same·
class. The antedating of the emergency, as it were,
from June 25 to February 27, 1975 is wholly B
unscientific and proceeds from irrational
considerations arising out of a supposed discovery
in the matter of screening of offenders. The inclusion
of offences and offenders in relation to the period
from February 27 to June 25, 1975 in the same C
class as those whose alleged unlawful activities
covered the period of emergency is too artificial to
be sustained."
107. The Court recorded its conclusion in paragraph 120
as follows:- D
'The Objects and Reasons are informative material
guiding the court about the purpose of a legislation
and the nexus of the differentia, if any, tothe end in
view. Nothing about Emergency period is adverted
E
to there as a distinguishing mark. If at all, the clear
clue is that all abuse of public authority by exalted
public men, whatever the time .of commission, shall .
be punished without the tedious delay which
ordinarily defeats justice in the case of top echelons
F
whose crimes affect the credentials of democratic
regimes."
108. In this context, reference may be made to 11.C.
Shukla (supra) upon which heavy reliance has been placed
by the State Government. The appellants therein while G
challenging the conviction raised a number of preliminary
objections including constitutional validity of the Special Courts
Act [No. 22of1979) on several grounds, including contravention
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. A three-Judge Bench·
H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - [2015) 14 S.C.R.
. A referred to the order passed in thereference made by the
President of india under Article 143(1) of the Constitution
wherein majority of the provisions in the Bill were treated to be
valid. Thereafter, the Bill ultimately got the assent of the
President with certain changes. After the Act came into force,
B it assumed a new eomplexion. The Court in the latter judgment
referred to clauses in ttie preamble and scanned the anatomy
of the Act. It was contended that.regard being had to the
principles laid down by this Court in the Special Courts Bill,
1978 (supra) the provisions fail to pass the test of valid
· c cfassification under Article 14, for the classification which
distinguishes persons who are placed in a group from others
who are left out of the group is not based on intelligible
differentia; that there was no nexus between the differentiation
which was the basis of the Classification and the object of the
D. Act; and that such differentiation did not liave any rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The
Court reading the opinion in the Special Courts Bill, 1978
(supra) did not agree with the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants that this Cou-rCha-d held that unless
E emergency offenders could be punished under the Special
Courts Act and that no Act seeking to punish the offences of
a special type not related to the emergency would be hit by
Article 14. ·The Court addressed to the validity of Sections 5,
6, 7 and 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979. One of the
F argumentS advanced was thatneither the words 'high public
or political office' had been defined nor the offence being
delineated so as to make the prosecution "of such offenders
a practical reality. Dealing with the said contention, the Court
held:-
G . "24. As regards the definition of "high public or · .
· political office" the expression is of well-known .
. significance and bears a clear connotation which
admits of no vagueness or ambiguity. Even during
the debate in Parliament, it was not suggested that
H the expression suffered from any vagueness.Apart
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1135
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
from that even in the Reference case Krishna Iyer, A
J. referred to holders of such offices thus : (SCC
pp. 440, 441, paras 107, 111)
" .. : heavy-weight criminaloids who often mislead
the people by public moral weight-lifting and multi
poirit manifestoes ... such super-offenders in top B
positions .... No erudite pedantry can stand in the
way of pragmatic grouping of high-placed office
holders separately, for purposes of high-speed
criminal action invested with early conclusiveness
and inquired into by high-level courts . c
.25. It is manifest from the observations of Krishna
Iyer, J., that persons holding high public or political
offices mean persons holding top positions
wielding large powers." D
109. Thereafter, the three-Judge Bench referred to the
description of persons holding high public or political office in
American Jurisprudence (2d, Voi. 63, pp. 626, 627 and 637)
Ferris in his Thesis on "Extraordinary Legal Remedies", Wade
and Phillips in"Constitutional Law" and after referring to various E
meanings attributed to the words ruled:-
"28. A perusal of the observations made in the
various textbooks referred to above clearly shows
that "political office" is an office which forms part of
a political department of the Government or the F
political executive. This, therefore, clearly includes
Cabinet Ministers, Ministers, Deputy Ministers-and
Parliamentary Secretaries who are running the
Department formulating policies and are
responsible to the Parliament. The word High is G
indication ofa top position and enabling the holder
thereof to take major policy decisions. Thus, the.
term "high public or political office" used in the Act
contemplates only a special class of officers or
politicians who may be categorised as follows: H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A "( 1) officials wielding extraordinary powers entitling
them to take major policy decisions and holding
positions of trust and answerable and accountable
for their wrongs;
(2) persons responsible for giving to the State a
B
clean, stable and honest administration;
(3) persons occupying a very elevated status in
whose hands lies the destiny of the nation."
29. The rationale behind the classification of
·c persons possessing the aforesaid characteristics
is that they wield wide powers which, if exercised
improperly by reason of corruption, nepotism or
breach of trust, may mar or adversely mould the
future of the country and tarnish its image. It cannot
D be said, therefore, with any conviction that persons
who possess special attributes could be equated
with ordinary criminals who have neither the power
nor the resources to commit offences of the type
described above. We are, therefore, satisfied that
E the term "persons holding high public or political
offices" is self-explanatory and admits of no
difficulty and that mere absence of definition of the
expression would not vitiate the classification made
by the Act. Such persons are in a position to take
F major decisions regarding social, economic,
financial aspect of the life of the community and
other far-reaching decisions on the home front as
also regarding external affairs and if their actions
are tainted by breach of trust, corruption or other
G extraneous considerations, they would damage the
interests of the country. It is, therefore, not only
proper but essential to bring such offenders to book
at the earliest possible opportunity."
H
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1137
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
110. After so stating, the Court referred to clause 4 of A
the preamble and opined thus:-
"31. The words "powers being a trust" clearly
indicate that any act which amounts to a breach of
the trust or of the powers conferred on the person
concerned would be an offence triable under the B
Act. Clause (4) is wide enough to include any
offence committed by holders of high public or
political offi.ces which amounts to breach of trust or
for which they are accountable in law and does not
leave any room for doubt. Mr Bhatia, however, c
submitted that even if the person concerned
commits a petty offence like violation of municipal
bye-laws or traffic rules he would have to be
prosecuted under the Act which will be seriously
prejudicial to him. In our opinion, this argument is D
purely illusory and based on a misconception of the
provisions of the Act. Section 5 which confers
powers on the Central Government to make a
declaration clearly refers to the guidelines laid down
in the preamble and no Central Government would E
ever think of prosecuting holders of high public or
political offices for petty offences and the doubt
expressed by the counsel for the appellant is,
therefore, totally unfounded."
F
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are unable
to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the words "high public or political office" not
being defined, creates a dent in the provision. The said words,
we are absolutely certain, convey a category of public servants G
which is well understood and there is no room for arbitrariness.
111. The next aspect of challenge pertains to the
classification made by the legislature in respect of the accused
persons facing trial under Section 13(a) to (d) and the accused
H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A persons under Section 13(1 )(e). It is urged by the learned
counsel for the appellants that there is no intelligible
differentia for making such a classification qua the offence
and moreover by adopting a rigorous procedure.
112. First, we shall advert to the class of offence and the
B persons. It is submitted by Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel
appearing for some of the appellants, that when a person
holding public office is accused of an offence under Section
13(1 )(a) to (d), he will be tried by the Special Courts under the
1988Act, but when Section 13(1 )(e) is combined along with
C other offences, namely, Section 7 to 11 of the 1988 Act, he will
be facing the trial under the Orissa Act or two trials. Mr. P.S.
Narasimha, learned senior counsel, would contend that the
bifurcation of offences defeats the concept of classification,
for it pertains to a "stand alone offence", though no discemable
D principle is perceptible. Learned senior counsel would contend
that there is no difference between Section 13(1 )(a) to (d) and
Section 13(1 )(e) of the 1988Act, but the legislature has made
a special classification which the law does not countenance.
It is also canvassed that a person not holding high public or .
E political office would be tried by the Special Judge under the
1988 Act, whereas the differentiated category will be tried by
the Orissa Act as a consequence of which an unacceptable
discrimination takes place. It is contended that the only basis
of classification for choosing a different forum with a different
F procedure is that the accused persons held 'high public or high
political office' though there can be cases where holders of
low public office can amass assets by illegal means but they
would not be liable to face confiscation proceedings as
provided under the Orissa Act. It has been argued that the
G classification is not to be done on the basis of post which a
public servant holds.
113. We have already referred to the term "offence". The
Orissa Act defines the offence to make it come within the
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1139
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
compartment of Clause (e) of sub-section 1 of Section 13 of A
the 1988 Act. The submission on behalf of the. learned counsel
for the appellants is that the classification is arbitrary,
unwarranted and unjustified as there is no rationale behind it.
Learned counsel have referred to the offences under Sections
7, 8, 9 and 12 of the 1988 Act. The said offences relate to B
different situations, whereas Section 13 deals with criminal
misconduct by a public servant. The said provision reads as
follows:-
"Section 13. Criminal misconduct by a public
servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit
c
the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain from any person for
himself or for any other person any gratification D
other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward
such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to .
accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any
other person, any valuable thing without E
consideration or for a consideration which he
knows to be inadequate from any person whom he
knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be
concerned in any proceeding or business
transacted or about to be transacted by him, or F
having any connection with the official functions of
himself or of any public servant to whom he is
subordinate, or from any person whom he knows
to be interested in or related to the person so
concerned; or G
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates
or otherwise converts for his own use any property
entrusted to him or under his control as a public
servant or allows any other person so to do; or
H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A (d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage; or
B (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains
for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary
c advantage without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession
or has, at any time during the period of his office,
been in possession for which the public servant
cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary
D
resources or property disproportionate to his known
sources of income.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,
"known sources of income" means income received
E from any lawful source and such receipt has been
intimated in accordance with the provisions of any
law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to
a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
F misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall be not Jess than four years
but which may extend to ten years and shall also
be liable to fine."
G 114. The submission of Mr. Narasimha, learned senior
counsel and others, as we have referred to earlier, is that it is
a micro-mini classification and classification is on the base of
a stand alone offence or to put it differently, it is a classification
qua a singular class. It is to be noted that Section 13(1)(e)
H
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1141
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
has its own significance in the context of the range of offences A
provided under the 1988 Act. Section 13(1 )( e) covers a period
which is called check period. It pertains to amassing of
disproportionate assets. The condition precedent is that
accused is prima facie found in possession of disproportionate
properties or possessing resources not known to his sources B
of income. It is obligatory on the part of the accused in that
case to explain his sources, which has been the basis for
accumulating the assets which are alleged to be
Iis proportionate. The offences (!nder Section 13(1) (a) to (d) .
1n a broad way can be called incident specific or situation C
specific whereas the offence under Section 13(1 )(e) is period
specific and it is not incident specific. There can be different
check periods. A person holding high public office or political
office has opportunities to accumulate disproportionate assets
other than his known sources of income. It has been submitted D
by the learned counsel for the appellants that disproportionate
assets can be accumulated by the persons working in the lesser
rank or not holding such high offices. This submission is noted
only to be rejected, forthe holders of high post or high public
office do definitely enjoy a distinguished position in contrast E
to other categories of officers or post holders. They form a
separate class. The legislature, regard being had to the
position the public servant holds, has put them in a different
class. There is a manifest 'reason that sustains the said
classification. The contention of the learned counsel for the F
appellants is that the provision suffers because of under-
inclusive classification but the same does not impress us as
in the instant case we are disposed to think that there is a
perceptible differentia in such exclusion. The court cannot
adopt an attitude to scrutinize a provision with mathematical G
exactitude. A pedantic approach in this regard cannot be
visualized. Learned counsel for the State of Odisha would
submit that the distinction is writ large and the legislature in its
wisdom has carved out the offence of Section 13(1 )(e) to be
H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A tried by Special Courts in a speedy manner. It is urged by him
that the onus is on the accused to prove that the asset is not
disproportionate and within the known sources of his income.
He has drawn inspiration from P. Na/Jamal v. Inspector of
Police", wherein it has been held that the words "known
B sources of income" have to be understood as "any lawful
source". That apart, the explanation to Section 13( 1)( e) further
enjoins that receipt of such income should have been intimated
by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of any
law applicable to such public servant at the relevant time. Such
C a public servant cannot escape from Section 13(1 )(e) of the
1988 Act by showing other legally forbidden sources, albeit
such sources are outside the purview of clauses (a) to (d) of
the sub-section.
115. Having so stated, we proceed to dwell upon the .
D concept of classification as envisaged under Article 14 of the
Constitution. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the authority
in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and
others" wherein this Court while dwelling upon the concept of
permissible classification opined thus:-
E "lt is now well established that while Article 14
forbids class regislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification for the purposes of
legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of
permissible classification two conditions must be
F fulfilled namely, (i) that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
together from others left out of the group, and (ii)
that that differentia must have a rational relation to
G the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question. The classification may be founded on
different bases, namely, geographical, or according
to objects or occupations or the like. What is
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1143
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
necessary is that there must be a nexus between A
the basis of classification and the object of the Act
under consideration. It is also well established by
the decisions of this Court thatArticle 14 condemns
discrimination not only by a substantive law but also
by a law of procedure." B
116. Recently, in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs v.
Union of India and Another", the Court, after reproducing
the principles stated in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmai (supra),
has referred to the various principles that have been enunciated
in that case by Chief Justice S.R. Das. We may profitably C
reproduce the same:-
. "(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it .
relates to a single individual if, on account of some
special circumstances or reasons applicable to him 0
. and not applicable to others, that single individual
may be treated as a class by himself;
(b)'that there is always a presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon
him who attacks it to sh9w that there has been a clear E
transgression of the constitutional principles;
(c) that it must be presumed that the legislature
understands and correctly appreciates the need of its
own people, that its laws are directed to problems made
manifest by experience and that its discriminations are F
based on adequate gr-0unds;
(d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of
harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases·
where the need is deemed to be the clearest; G
(e) that in order to sustain the presumption of
constitutionality the court may take into consideration
matters of common knowledge, matters of common
02
(2008) 5 sec 287 H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A report, the history of the times and may assume every
state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time
of legislation; and
(f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing
conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed,
B if there is nothing on .the face of the law or the surrounding
circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which
the classification may reasonably be regarded as based,
the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to
the extent of always holding that there must be some
c undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain
individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating
legislation."
117. Having noted the aforesaid authorities, it is
0 instructive to refer to the authority in Rehman Shagoo v. State
of Jammu and Kashmir", which dealt with a single offence
legislation and treated it to be valid by observing thus:-
"The offence created by Section 3 of the Ordinance
is not found as such in the Penal Code but is a new
E offence of an aggravated kind which may in the·
circumstances prevailing in the State mentioned
above be treated as different from the ordinary
offences and may well be dealt with by a drastic
procedure without encountering the charge of
F violation of the equal protection clause. We are,
therefore, of opinion that on the principles laid down
by this Court in the large number of cases
summarised in the Da/mia case the Ordinance
can!lot be said to be discriminatory and, therefore,
G violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
,.
118. In C./. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the
Constitution Bench, while considering the presumption raised
: AIR 1960 SC 1
H AIR 1960 SC 548
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1145
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
under Section 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 A
has ruled that:-
" Legislature presumably realised that experience
in courts showed how difficult it i~ to bring home to
the accused persons the charge of bribery;
evidence which is and can be generally adduced
B
in such cases in support of the charge is apt to be
treated as tainted, and so it is not very easy to
establish the charge of bribery beyond a reasonable
doubt. Legislature felt that the evil of corruption
amongst public servants posed a serious problem c
and had to be effectively rooted out in the interest
of clean and efficient administration. That is why
the legislature decided to enact Section 4(1) with
a view to require the raising of the statutory
presumption as soon as the condition 'precedent D
prescribed by it in that behalf is satisfied. The object
which the legislature thus wanted to achieve is the
eradication of corruption from amongst public
servants, and between the said object and the
intelligible differentia on which the classification is E
a
based there is rational and direct relation. We
have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the
challenge to the viresof Section 4(1) on the ground
that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution must
fail."
119 .. While dealing with this facet, it would not be
inappropriate to advert to certain passages from !he concurring
opinion ofV.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in the Special Courts Bill, 1978
(supra) which reads as under:-
G
. "105. Rightatthe beginning, an exordial enunciation
of my socio-legal perspective which has a
constitutional bearing may be set out. I lend
judicious assent to the broader policy of social
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A justice behind this Bill. As I read it, this measure is
the embryonic expression of a necessitous
legislative project, which, if full-fledged, will work a
relentless break-through towards catching, through
the compulsive criminal process, the higher
B inhabitants of Indian public and political decks, who
have, in practice, remained "untouchable" and
"unapproachable" to the rule of law. "Operation
Clean-Up" is a "consummation devoutly to be
wished", although naive optimism cannot obfuscate
C the obnoxious experience that laws made in
terrorem against those who belong to the top power
bloc prove in action to be paper tigers. The
pathology of our public law, with its class slant, is
that an unmincing ombudsman or sentinel on the
D qui vive, with power to act against those in power,
now or before, and offering legal access to the
informed citizen to complain with immunity does not
exist, despite all the bruited umbrage of political
performers against peculations and perversions by
E higher echelons. Law is what law does, not what
law says and the moral gap between word and deed
menaces peopled faith in life and law. And then,
the tragedy-democracy becomes a casualty. 111.
No erudite pedantrv can stand in the way of
F pragmatic grouping of high-placed office-holders
separately, for purposes of high-speed criminal
action invested with early conclusiveness and
inguired into by high-level courts. This differentia of
the Bill rings irresistibly sound. And failure to press
G forward such clean-up undertaking may be a blow
to the rule of law and the Rule of life and may deepen
the crisis of democracy among the millions - the
men who make our nation -. who today are
largely disenchanted. So it is time. if peaceful
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1147
. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
transformation is the constitutional scheme. to : A
begin by pre-emptive steps of quick and conclusive
exposure and conviction of criminals in towers of
power-. a special class of economic offenders
with abettors from the Bureaucracy and Big
Business. as recent Commission Reports trendily B
portray and portent. Such is the simple. sociological
substance of the classificatory discrimen which
satisfies the egalitarian conscience of Article 14."
[emphasis supplied]
c
120. From the abovestated ratiocination, it is quite
evincible that there is a difference, a demonstrable one,
between the offence under Section 13(1)(e) and the rest of
the offences enumerated in Section 13. Section 13(1 )(e)
targets the persons who have disproportionate assets to their D
known sources of income. This conceptually is a period
offence, for it is not incident specific as such. It does not require
proof of corruption in specific acts, but has reference to asi;ets
accumulated and known sources of income in a particular
. period. The test applicable and proof required is different. E
That apart, in the context of the present Orissa Act it is
associated with high public office or with political office which
are occupied by people who control the essential dynamics of
power which can be a useful weapon to amass wealth adopting
illegal means. In such a situation, the argument that they being F
put in a different class and tried in a separate special court
solely because the alleged offence, if nothing else, is a self-
defeating one. The submission that there is a sub-classification
does not remotely touch- the boundaries of Article 14; and
certainly does not encroach thereon to invite its wrath of the
G
equality clause.
121. The controversy can be looked from another angle.
The special courts have been established on the basis of the
law enacted by the State Legislature after obtaining the
H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A presidential assent. The legislature has spelt out a policy for
the purpose of establishing the Special Courts. It relates to an
offence of special kind. In this regard, reference to a
Constitution Bench decision in Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The
State of West Bengal' may be usefully referred to. Speaking
B forthe majority, Patanjali Sastri C.J. distinguished the decision
in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar". The Court
referred to the Act which was brought into existence to provide
for the more speedy trial and more effective punishment of
certain offences. The Court while dealing with the equal
C protection of law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution
observed that there is a system which is brought into by
introducing Special Courts dealing with special types of
offences under a shortened and simplified procedure. The
legislation is based on perfect intelligible principles of
D differentia having a clear and reasonable relation with the object
sought to be achieved. The Court further observed that whether
an enactment providing for a special procedure for trial of
certain offences is or is not discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 must be determined in each case as it arises, for,
E no general rule applicable to all cases can safely be laid down.
It has been further ruled that practical assessment of operation
of the law in the particular circumstances is necessary. We
may state that the Court took note of the fact that in Kathi
Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra" the decision in
F Anwar Ali Sarkar (supra) was distinguished and it was held
that the provisions are not obnoxious to Article 14 as it has
provided a special procedure regard being had to the gravity
of the particular crime, the advantage to be derived by the State
by recoupment of its loss, and oth'er like considerations may
G have to be weighed before allotting a case to the special court
which is required to impose a compensatory sentence of fine
on every offence tried and convicted by it.
H : li~~~i ig~ ~i:
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC . .v. STATE OF BIHAR 1149
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
122. In J. Jaya Lalitha v. Union oftndia" the validity of A
Section 3 of the 1988 Act insofar as it empowers the State
Government "to appoint as many special judges as may be
necessary for such or group of cases" as may be specified in
the notification and the consequential exercise of power in
appointing special judges to try exclusively on day to day basis B
the criminal cases filed against the writ petitioner therein, was
called in question. Dealing with the said facet, the two-Judge
Bench opined that the said provision is not arbitrary inasmuch
as the provisions sufficiently indicated the intention of the
legislature and also the object of the Act that the cases of C
corruption are required to be tried speedily and completed
as early as possible. Be it stated, the Court referred to the
authorities in the Special Courts Bill, 1978 (supra), Kathi
Raning Rawat (supra) and Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator
for_ the Union Territory of Delhi to arrive at the said D
conclusion.
123. Thus, the submission which has been put forth
forcefully by the learned counsel for the appellants pales into
insignificance, ·and the irresistible conclusion is that the
legislative policy behind establishment of Special Courts for E
trial of accused involved in the offence under Section 13( 1)(e)
' .; of the 1988 Act in respect of certain categories of accused is
absolutely impeccable and it is saved from the vice of Article
14 of the Constitution.
F
124. The next submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants pertains to the issue that the
corruption is an all India phenomenon and persons in other
States are prosecuted under the 1988 Act, whereas in the State
of Odisha,. they are tried in a more rigorous manner. It is G
submitted that the same brings in inequality which causes
discomforttoArticle 14 of the Constitution. We have already
held that as the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of
: (1999) s sec 13s
AIR 1961SC1602 H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A the Constitution has been obtained and the assent is valid in
law, the State law will operate. Article 14 comes into play where
equals are treated as unequals. The persons holding high
public or political office in the State of Odis ha are governed
by the OrissaAct. The State legislature has passed the Orissa
B Act having regard to the obtaining situation in the State as the
objects and reasons of the said Act do reflect. The legislature
in its wisdom has enacted the law. The persons who are
functioning in certain other States may be required to face trial
under the 1988 Act, but on that score there can be no violation
C of Article 14 of the Constitution. The scale suggested, cannot
be the scale to judge. A legislation passed by one State
legislature cannot be equated with the legislation passed by
another State legislature. Nor can its validity be tested on that
foundation. The Constitution bench judgment in The State of
D Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar" long back had
succinctly clarified the position in this regard laying down thus:-
"The power of the Court to declare a law void under
Article 13 has to be exercised with reference to the
specific legislation which is impugned. It is
E conceivable that when the same legislature enacts
two different laws but in substance they form one
legislation, it might be open to the Court to
disregard the form and treat them as one law and
strike it down, if in their conjunction they result in
F discrimination. But such a course is not open where,
as here, the two laws sought to be read in
conjunction are by different Governments and by
different legislatures. Article 14 does not authorise
the striking down of .a law of one State on the ground
G that in contrast with a law of another State on the
same subject its provisions are discriminatory. Nor
does it contemplate a law of the Centre or of the
State dealing with similar subjects being held to be
60
H AIR 1954 SC 493
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1151
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
unconstitutional by a process of comparative study A
of the provisions of the two enactments. The
sources of authority for the two statutes being
different, Article 14 can have no application''.
125. Similar view was reiterated in Prabhakaran Nair
v. State of Tami/ Nadu & Others". Therefore, the question of 8
bringing in the concept of equality qua persons who function in
the other ·states is an unacceptable proponement and it is
impossible to accept the same.
126. Now, we shall advert to the challenge relating to the c
grievance which is fundamentally twin in nature. First, the
appellants who were facing the trial before the Special Judge
under the 1988 Act, their cases being transferred, are being
compelled to be tried under the Orissa Act as a consequence
of which they are constrained to face rigourism of confiscation 0
as an interim punishment which was not in existence and
second, the provisions pertaining to confiscation cause double
jeopardy. It is urged that the provisions violate Article 14, 20(2)
and 21 of the Constitution. Having regard to the submissions
made, we think it necessary to produce the relevant provisions E
of the Act. The said provisions are Sections 13, 14, 15 and
16 of the OrissaAct. They occur in Chapter Ill of the OrissaAct
that deals with confiscation of property. We have outlined the
said provisions earlier. To appreciate the controversy in proper
perspective, we reproduce the said provisions:-
F
"Section 13. Application for confiscation. - (1)
Where the State Government, on the basis of prima
facie evidence, have reasons to believe that any
person, who held high public or political office has
committed the offence, the State Government may, G
whether or not the Special Court has taken
cognizance of the offence, authorise the Public
Prosecutor for making an application to the
authorised officer for confiscation under this Act of
61
AIR 1987 SC 2117 H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A the money and other property, which the State
Government believe the said person to have
procured by means of the offence.
2.An application under sub-section (1 )-
(a) shall be accompanied by one or more
B affidavits, stating the grounds on which the belief,
that the said person has committed the offence,
is founded and the amount of money and
estimated value of other property believed to
have been procured by means of the offence;
c and
(b) shall also contain any information available
as to the location for the time being of any such
money and other property, and shall, if necessary,
give other particulars considered relevant to the
D
context.
Section 14. Notice for confiscation. - ,(1) Upon
receipt of an application made under Section 13 of this
Act, the authorised officer shall serve a notice upon the
E person in respect of whom the application is made
(hereafter referred to as the person affected) calling upon
him within such time as may be-specified in the notice,
which shall not be ordinarily less than thirty days, to
indicate the source of his income, earnings or assets,
F out of which or by means of which he has acquired such
money or property, the evidence on which he relies and
other relevant information and particulars, and to show
cause as to why all or any of such money or property or
both, should not be declared to have been acquired by
G means of the offence and be confiscated to the State
Government.
(2) Where a notice under sub-section (1) to any person
specifies any money or property or both as, being held
on behalf of such person by any other person, a copy of
H the notice shall also be served upon such other person.
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1153
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section ( 1), A
the evidence, information and particulars brought on
record before the authorised officer, by the person
affected, shall not be used against him in the trial before
the Special Court.
Section 15. Confiscation of property in certain B
cases-
(1) The authorised officer may, after considering
the explanation, if any, to the show cause
notice issued under section 14 and the c
materials available before it, and after giving
to the person affected (and in case where the
person affected holds any money or property
specified in the notice through any other
person, to such other person also) a D
reasonable opportunity of being heard, by
order, record a finding whether all or any other
money or properties in question have been
acquired illegally.
(2) Where the authorised officer specifies that E
some of the money or property or both
referred to in the show cause notice are
acquired by means of the offence, but is not
able to identify specifically such money or
property, then it shall be lawful for the F
authorised officer to specify the money or
property or both which, to the best of his
judgment, have been acquired by means of
the offence and record a finding, accord_ingly,
under sub-section (1 ). G
(3) Where the authorised officer records a finding
under this section to the effect that any money
or property or both have been acquired· by
means of the offence, he shall declare that
H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
'
A such money or property or both shall, subject
to the provisions of this Act, stand confiscated
to the State Government free from all
encumbrances.
Provided that if the market price of the
B property confiscated is deposited with the
authorised officer, the property shall not be
confiscated.
(4) Where any share in a Company stands
c confiscated to the State Government under
this Act, then, the Company shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the
Articles of Association of the Company,
D forthwith register the State Government as
the transferee of such share.
(5) Every proceeding for confiscation of money
or property or both under thfs Chapter shall
be disposed of within a period of six months
E from the date of service of the notice under
sub-section (1) of section 14.
(6) The order of confiscation passed under this
section shall, subject to the order passed in
appeal, if any, under section 17, be final and
F shall not be called in question in any Court of
law.
Section 16. Transfer to be null and void. -
Where, after the issue of a notice under section 14
G any money or property or both referred to in the
said notice are transferred by any m·ode
whatsoever, such transfer shall, for the purposes of
the proceedings under this Act, be void and if such
money or property or both are subsequently
H confiscated to the State Government under section
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1155
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
15, then, the transfer of such money or property or A
both shall be deemed to be null and void."
127. The said provisions, as has been stated earlier, have
been attacked from two angles. The first cine, these provisions
violate Articles 14, 20(2), 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The B
second limb of submission is with regard to the accused
persons who had been facing trial under the 1988 Act prior to
coming into force of the Orissa Act as a result of the transfer
of case, are compelled to face harsher penalty than what was
provided at the time of commission of the alleged offence.
Structuring the first submission, it is contended that C
reasonableness of pre-trial confiscation of a person's property
before he has been found guilty makes the provision unjust,
unfair and arbitrary. That apart, it being a punish~ent, the
accused cannot be allowed to face doubl<;! jeopardy.
Additionally, it is contended that Section 13 confers the power D
on the State Government to authorise the Public Prosecutor
for making the application to the authorised officer for
confiscation of money and other property under the Orissa Act,
if the State Government believes that the said person to have
been procured by means of the offence. The criticism E
advanced as regards the said provision is that unbridled and
unrestricted power is conferred on the State Government to
form an opinion. We have expressed our opinion with regard
to formation of opinion as regards the prima facie case in the
context of Section 5 of the Act. The said principles are F
applicable to Section 13. What is required to be scrutinized
by the State Government that the offence exists under Section
13( 1)( e) of the Orissa Act and thereafter it has to authorise the
Public Prosecutor to make an application. The submission of
the learned counsel for the appellants that the Public Prosecutor G
has no role. We are not adverting to the role of the Public
Prosecutor that has been conferred on him under the Code of
Criminal Procedure nor is it necessary to dwell upon, how this
Court has time and again dwelt upon the role of the Public
H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A Prosecutor. It is because the application that is required to be
filed in sub-section (1) of Section 13 itself postulates the
guidelines. The application has to be accompanied by an
affidavit stating the grounds on which the belief as regards the
commission of the offence and the amount of money and many
B other aspects. An application has to be filed by the Public
Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor before he files an
application under sub-section (1) of Section 13, is required to
be first satisfied with regard to the aspects enumerated in sub-
section (2). Sub-section (2) obliges the Public Prosecutor that
C requirements are satisfied for filing the application. In view of
the said position, it cannot be said that there is lack of guidance.
It is not that the authority has the discretion to get an application
filed through the Public Prosecutor or not. It is not that a mere
discretion Is left to the Public Prosecutor. The authority has
D only been authorised to scrutinize the offence and authorise
the Public Prosecutor and thereafter the Public Prosecutor has
been conferred the responsibility which is manifestly detailed,
and definitely guided, to file the application. Thus scrutinized,
the said provision does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
E
128. Having said about the guidance, we would like to
make it clear that the word "may" used in Section 13 has to be
understood in its context. It does not really relate to authorization-
of filing. To clarify that the authority does not have the
F discretionary power to authorise for filing against some and
refrain from authorizing in respect of the other, it has to be
construed that the said word relates to the purpose, that is,
the application to be filed for the purpose of confiscation. This
is in consonance with the legislative policy, the scheme of the
Act and also the objects and reasons of the Act. The legislative
G policy, as declared, clearly indicates thatthere should not be
any kind of discretion with the Government in these kinds of
matters. The fulcrum of the policy, as is discernible, is that
delinquent officers having disproportionate assets coming
H within the purview of Section 13(1 )(e) have to face the
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1157
[DIPAK MISRA, J.) ·
confiscation proceedings subject to judicial scrutiny as the rest A
of the provisio"ns do unveil. Learned counsel for the appellants
would contend that the legislature has delegated such power
on the authority which can act in an indiscriminate manner.
The said submission in the context of this Act, is sans
substance as we have already opined that there is no B
discretion to pick and choose but to see the minimum
requirement, that is, the offence and the status. Nothing beyond
that.
129. Sections 14 and 15 have been criticized on the
ground that they introduce concept of pre-trial confiscation. As C
indicated earlier, the submission is pyramided on the principle
that the provisions are violative of Articles 14, 20(2) and 21 of
the Constitution of India. Apart from this, the· other assail is
that they have been made retrospectively applicable because
the cases of accused persons pending before the Special _?
Courts under the 1988 Act are transferred and they are
compelled to face the confiscation proceedings and further
consequence thereof, which is not permissible in the
constitutional scheme.
E
130. First we .shall deal with the first attack. Section 14
requires the person in respect of whom the application is made
to indicate his source of income, earnings or assets out of
which he has acquired such money or property. He is entitled
to adduce evidence on which he wants to place reliance and F
is also entitled to furnish other relevant information. Section
. ·15 confers jurisdiction on the Authorised Officer to consider
the explanation and the material available before it and
proceed to record a finding whether all or any other money or
properties in question have been acquired illegally. He is G
statutorily required to afford reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the affected person. He is obliged under the law to
declare that such money or property or both shall stand
confiscated free from all encumbrances. Sub-section 5 of
Section 15 stipulates that the proceeding for confiscation shall H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of
notice issued under sub-section (1)of Section 14. The order
of confiscation as envisaged under Section 15(6) is subject to
appeal. Mr. R.K. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for
some of the appellants would contend that it is a draconian
B law taking the society back to the dark days. The provisions
are criticized that once a confiscation takes place free from
all encumbrances, the right, title and interest to the property or
the money gets extinguished. It is urged that same cannot be
done without a proper trial. Learned counsel for the State would
c lay emphasis on the ill-gotten wealth. He has referred to an
extract of the 16olh Law Commission Report. We have been
commended to certain judgments of this Court that spoke of
corruption at high places. The issue that has really emanated
for consideration is whether there can be an interim
D confiscation when the trial is pending. It is argued with
vehemence by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is
"forfeiture" of property and it cannot be imposed without a trial.
In this context, reference has been made to Section 53 of the
Indian Penal Code which provides forfeiture of property as a
E punishment. It is also canvassed that the nomenclature would
not make. any difference when the impact tantamounts to a
punishment. Emphasis is laid on the words "vest free from all
encumbrances" to highlight that in its normal connotation, it
would only mean that it shall stand transferred to the State.
F 131. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, it
is absolutely essential to understand the concept of
confiscation. In Maqboo/ Hussain v. State of Bombay" the ·
Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue whether the
confiscation by the customs authorities is a punishment.
G Dealing with the said issue, the larger Bench ruled:-
"17. We are of the opinion that the Sea Customs
authorities are not a judicial tribunal and the
adjudging of confiscation, increased rate.of duty or
62
H AIR 1953 SC 325
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1159
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
penalty under the provisions of the Sea Customs A
Act do not constitute a judgment or order of a court
or judicial tribunal necessary for the purpose of
supporting a plea of double jeopardy.
18. It therefore follows that when the Customs
authorities confiscated the gold in question neither
B
the proceedings taken before the Sea Customs
authorities constituted a prosecution of the
appellant nor did the order of confiscation constitute
a punishment inflicted by a court or judicial tribunal
on the appellant. The appellant could not be said c
by reason of these proceedings before the S'ea
Customs authorities to have been "prosecuted and
punished" for the same offence with which he was
charged before the Chief Presidency Magistrate,
Bombay, in the complaint which was filed against D
him under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act."
132. Learned counsel for the State has drawn our
attention to another Constitution Bench decision in the State E
of West Bengal v. S.K. Ghosh". The factual matrix in the
said case was that the respondent therein was appointed as
the Chief Refugee Administrator of Burma Refugee
Organisation and he was believed to have embezzled large
sums of money belonging to Government which were at his F
disposal. The prosecution was initiated under Sections 120-B
and 409 of the Indian Penal Code before coming into force .
the Second Special Tribunal constituted under the Criminal
Law Amendment Ordinance, No. 29 of 1943. During the
pendencyofthe case, the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance G
30 of 1944 was passed. The Court took note of the fact that
the object of the Ordinance was to prevent disposal or
concealment of money or other property procured by means
of certain scheduled offences punishable under the IPC and
63
AIR 1963 SC 255; 1963 (2) SCR 111 H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A one of the offences to which the Ordinance applied was 409
IPC apart from other offences. The respondent was convicted
by the Special Tribunal on August 31, 1949 by which Criminal
Law (1943)Amendment amending Ordinance No. 12of1945
had come into force. Relying on the said Ordinance, the Special
B Tribunal apart from imposing a substantial sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for five years, directed a fine of Rs. 45 lakhs to
be paid on the charge of conspiracy. The respondent preferred
an appeal before \he High Court assailing his conviction and
the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of fine.
C However, the High Court opined that the Special Tribunal could
have imposed the fine under the ordinary law but not under
Section 10 of the 1943 Ordinance as amended in 1945
prescribing minimum limit of fine. The respondent had
approached this Court in appeal which was dismissed on the
D ground that it was clear that Rs. 30 lakhs have been
misappropriated by the respondent as a result of the
conspiracy. On January 9, 1957, an application was made to
the District Judge under Section 13 of the 1944 Ordinance for
confiscation of the property. The property stood attached under
E Section 3 of the 1944 Ordinance. The learned District Judge
held on a construction of Section 12 and Section 13(3) of the
1944 Ordinance that the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs together with
the cost of attachment had first to be forfeited to the Union of
India from the properties attached and thereafter the fine of
F Rs. 45 lakhs was to be recovered from the residue of the said
attached property. However, as it was not possible to forfeit
the properties to the value of Rs. 30 lakhs without valuation,
the District Judge directed the receiver to report as to the cost
of attachment including the cost of management of the property
G attached. He also directed the parties to submit their estimates
as to the value of the property attached. The said order was
assailed by the respondent in appeal and one of the Judges
of the High Court opined that the fine amount was recoverable
and no proceeding under Section 13 could be taken for
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1161
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
forfeiture of Rs. 30 lakhs, the embezzled amount inasmuch as A
no action could be taken under the Ordinance. The other
learned Judge opined that the District Judge had jurisdiction
to forfeit properties worth Rs. 30 lakhs under Section 13 but
he was of the opinion that Section 53 of the IPC referred to
forfeiture as punishment is distinct from fine and as the B
· punishment of forfeiture as contemplated by the 1944
Ordinance had yet to take place, Article 20(1) of the
Constitution would apply. The reason for coming to such a
conclusion was that 1944 Ordinance had come into force on
August 23, 1944, while the real and effective period during C
which the offence was committed ended with July, 1944 and
thereafter forfeiture was not prescribed as a punishment before
the 1944 Ordinance. This Court referred to Section 13 of the
1944 Ordinance which deals with the disposal of attached
property upon termination of criminal proceeding. The court D
referred to Section 5 that provides for investigation of objection
to attachment and the authority of the District Judge under sub-
section 3 of Section 5 to pass an order making the attachment
absolute or varying it by releasing a portion of the property
from attachment or withdrawing the order. In the said case, the E
District Judge had made the order absolute and the properties
had continued under attachment. The Court referred to Section
3 to opine that there are two kinds of properties which are to
be attached. The first property which has been procured by
· the commission of the offence, whether it be in the form of F
money or in the form of movable or immovable property, and
second properties are other than the above. The respondent
in the said case had been .charged with embezzlement of
money and that was why an application for attachment under
Section 3 was made that he had used the money procured by G
commission of offence in purchasing certain properties. The
Court referred to Section 13 and ruled that the District Judge
has jurisdiction to deal with the property attached under Section
38 for the purpose of forfeiture provided Section 12 has been
H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A complied with. Thereafter, the larger Bench adverted to Section
12(1) and in that context held that:-
".... The sub-section lays down that before the
judgment is pronounced by the court trying the
offender and it is represented to the court that an
B order of attachment of property had been passed
under Section 3 in connection with such offence,
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
c of the offence. Clearly all that Section 12(1) requires
is that the court trying the offender should be asked
to record a finding as to the amount of money or
value of other property procured by the accused
before it by means of the offence for which he is
D being tried. There is no procedure provided for
making the representation to the court to record a
finding as to the amount of money or value of other
property procured by the offence. In our view, all
that Section 12(1) requires is that at the request of
E the prosecution the court should give a finding as
to the amount of money or value of other property
procured by the accused. Representation may be
by application or even oral and so long as the court
gives a finding as to the amount of money or value
F of other property procured by the offence that would
in our opinion be sufficient compliance with Section
12(1 ). It is not necessary that the court when it gives
a finding as to the amount of money or value of other
property procured by means of the offence should
G say in so many words in passing the order that it is
making that finding on a representation under
Section 12(1 ). It is true that under Section 10 of the
1943 Ordinance as amended in 1945 the court
when imposing a fine has to give a finding as to the
H
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1163
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] •
amount of money or value of other property found A
to have been procured by the offender by means of
the offence in order that it may comply with the
provisions of Section 10 as to the minimum fine to
be imposed. We see no reason however why a
finding given for the purpose of Section 10 B
determining the amount of money or the value of
other property found to have been procured by the
offender by means of the offence should not also
be taken as a finding under Section 12(1) of the
1944 Ordinance. The result of the two findings in C.
our opinion is exactly the same, the only difference
being that under Section 10 of the 1943 Ordinance,
as amended in 1945, the court may do this suo moto
while under Section 12(1) of the 1944 Ordinance it
has to be done on the representation made by the D
prosecution."
133. Thereafter the Court noted the reasoning of the other
learned Judge and opined that it was not necessary in the said
appeal to decide whether the case would come within the ambit
of Articles 20(1 ). This opinion was expressed principally on E
the ground that the forfeiture provided under Section 13(3) is
not a penalty at all wit~in the meaning of Article 20(1 ). In that
context, the Court analyzed the provisions of the 1944
Ordinance and came to hold that:-
F
"....The forfeiture by the District Judge under Section
13(3) cannot in our opinion be equated to forfeiture
of property which is provided in Section 53 of the ·
Indian Penal Code. The forfeiture provided in
Section 53 is undoubtedlya penalty or punishment G
within the meaning of Article 20( 1); but that order of
forfeiture has to be passed by the court trying the
offence. where there is a provision for forfeiture in
the section concerned in the Indian Penal Code.
H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A There is nothing however in the 1944 Ordinance to
show that it provides for any kind of punishment for
any offence. Further it is clear that the Court of
District Judge which is a Principal Court of Civil
Jurisdiction can have no jurisdiction to try an
B offence under the Indian Penal Code. The order of
forfeiture therefore by the District Judge under
Section 13(3) cannot be equated to the infliction of
a penalty within the meaning of Article 20(1 ).Article
20(1) deals with conviction of persons for offences
C and for subjection of them to penalties. It provides.
firstly that "no person shall be convicted of any
offence except for violation of a law in force at the
time of the commission of the act charged as an
offence". Secondly, it provides that no person shall
D be "subjected to a penalty greater than that which
might have been inflicted under the law in force at
the time of the commission of the offence". Clearly,
therefore Article 20 is dealing with punishment for
offences and provides two safeguards, namely, (1)
E that no one shall be punished for an act which was
not an offence under the law in force when it was
committed, and (ii) that no one shall be subjected
to a greater penalty for an offence than what was
provided under the law in force when the offence
F was committed. The provision for forfeiture under
Section 13(3) has nothing to do with the infliction of
any penalty on any person for an offence. If the
forfeiture provided in Section 13(3) were really a
penalty on a convicted person for commission of
G an offence we should h'ave found it provided in the
1943 Ordinance and that penalty offorfeiture would
have been inflicted by the criminal court trying the
offender."
[emphasis is added]
H
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1165
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
134. In this context reference to authority in Divisional A
Forest Officer and another v. G. II. Sudhakar Rao and
04
others would be apt. In the said case, the confiscation under
the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act arose for consideration. The
question that was posed by the Court was whether where a
Forest Officer makes a report of seizure of any timber of forest B
produce and produces the seized property along with a report
under Section 44(2) that he has reason to believe that a forest
offence has been committed in respect of such timber or the
forest produce seized, could there be simultaneous
proceedings for confiscation to the Government of such timber C
or forest produce and the implements, etc., if the Authorized
Officer under Section 44(2A) of the Act is satisfied that a forest
offence has been committed, along with a criminal case
instituted on a complaint by the Forest Officer before a
Magistrate of the commission of a forest offence under Section D
20 of the Act. Answering the said issue, the Court scrutinized
the amended provisions that were brought into force by Act of
1976 and came to hold that:-
"The conferral of power of confiscation of seized
timber or forest produce and the implements, etc., E
on the Authorized Officer under sub-section (2A) of
Section 44 of the Act on his being satisfied that a
forest offence had been committed in respect
thereof, is not dependent upon whether a criminal
prosecution for commission of a forest offence has F
been launched against the offender or not. It is a
separate and distinct proceeding from that of a
trial before the Court for commission of an offence.
Under sub-section (2A) of Section 44 of the Act,
where a Forest Officer makes report of seizure of G
any timber or forest produce and produces the
seized timber before the Authorized Officer along
with a report under Section 44(2), the Authorized
" (1985) 4 sec 573
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A Officer can direct confiscation to Government of
such timber or forest produce and the implements,
etc., if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been
committed, irrespective of the fact whether the
accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for
B the commission of a forest offence under Section
20 or 29 of the Act."
135. In Director of Enforcement v. M.C. T.M.
Corporation Pvt. Ltd and Others" a two-Judge Bench was
addressing the issue with regard to mens rea or criminal intent
C for establish contravention of Section 10 punishable under
section 23 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The
other issue that arose for consideration was whether Section
10(1) of FERA, 1947 was an independent provision making
its contravention by itself punishable under Section 23(1 )(a)
D of FERA, 1947 or whether its contravention could arise only if
there is a breach of some directions issued by the Reserve
Bank of India under Section 10(2) of FERA, 194 7. In the said
case, the High Court had opined that Section 23 was a penal
provision and the proceedings under Section 23(1 )(a) were
E quasi criminal in nature and therefore existence of mens rea
was a necessary ingredient for the commission of an offence
under Section 10 of the Act. Dealing with the said facet the
Court expressed:-
F "The proceedings under Section 23(1 )(a) of FERA,
1947 are 'adjudicatory' in nature and character are
not "criminal proceedings". The officers of the
Enforcement Directorate and other administrative
authorities are expressly empowered by the Act to
G 'adjudicate' only. Indeed they have to act 'judicially'
and follow the rules of natural justice to the extent
applicable but, they are not 'Judges' of the 'Criminal
Courts' trying an 'accused' for commission of an
offence, as understood in the general context. They
H "(1996) 2 sec 471
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1167
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
perform quasi ~judicial functions and do not act A
as 'courts' by only as 'administrators' and
'adjudicators'. In the proceedings before them, they
do not try 'an accused' for commission of "any
crime" (not merely an offence) but determine the
liability of the contravener for the breach of his B
'obligations' imposed under the Act. They impose
'penalty' for the breach of the "civil obligations" laid
down under the Act and not impose any 'sentence'
forthe commission of an offence. The expression
'penalty' is a word of wide significance. C
Sometimes, it means recovery of an amount as a
penal measure even in civil proceedings. An
exaction which is not compensatory in character is
also termed as a 'penalty'. When penalty is
imposed by an adjudicating officer, it is done so D
in "adjudicatory proceedings" and not by way of fin~
as a result of 'prosecution' of an 'accused' for
commission of an 'offence' in a criminal court.
Therefore, merely because 'penalty' clause exists
in Section 23(1 )(a), the nature of the proceedings E
under that section is not changed from 'adjudicatory'
to 'criminal' prosecution. An order made by an
adjudicating authority under the Act is not that of
conviction but of determination of the breach of the
civil obligation by the offender". F
136. In this regard, reference to a recent two-Judge
Bench decision in Biswanath Bhattacharya v. Union of
00
India & others would be apt. In the said case the Court was
dealing with forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign
Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. A G
contention was advanced by the appellant therein that forfeiture
is ;i penalty and, therefore, it could not be taken recourse to
without a conviction. The stand of the Union of India was that
00
(2014) 4 sec 392 H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A the forfeiture contemplated under the said Act was not a penalty
within the meaning of that expression occurring in Article 20,
but only a deprivation of property to a legislatively identified
class of persons - in the event of their inability to explain to the
satisfaction of the State that they had legitimate sources of
B funds forthe acquisition of such property. The two-Judge Bench,
while explaining the stand of the Union of India, took note of
the fact that the Act is made applicable to five classes of
persons specified under Section 2 of the said Act. It also
observed that the conviction or the preventive detention
C contemplated under the Act is not the basis or cause of
confiscation, butthefactual basis for a rebuttable presumption
to enable the State to initiate proceedings to examine whether
the properties held by such persons are illegally acquired
properties. In the ultimate eventuate, the Court ruled that the
D forfeiture provided in the said enactment was not violative of
Article 20 of the Constitution. It also proceeded to state:-
"lf a subject acquires property by means which are
not legally approved, the sovereign would be
perfectly justified to deprive such persons of the
E enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public.
interest in ensuring that persons who cannot
establish that they have legitimate sources to
acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such
wealth. Such a deprivation, in our opinion, would
F certainly be consistent with the requirement of
Articles 300-A and 14 of the Constitution which
prevent the State from arbitrarily depriving a subject
of his property."
G 137. In the case at hand, the entire proceeding is meant
to arrive at the conclusion whether on the basis of the
application preferred by the Public Prosecutor and the material
brought on record, the whole or any other money or some of
the property in question have been acquired illegally and further
H any money or property or both have been acquired by the
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR. 1169
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
means of the offence. After arriving at the said conclusion, the A
order of confiscation is passed. The order of confiscation is
subject to appeal under Section 17 of the Orissa Act. That
apart, it is provided under Section 19 where an order of
confiscation made under Section 15 is modified or annulled
by the High Court in appeal or the where the person affected B
is acquitted by the special court, the money or property or both
shall be returned to the person affected. Thus, it is basicaliy a
confiscation which is interim in nature. Therefore, it is not a
punishment as envisaged in law and hence, it is difficult to
accept the submission that it is a pre-trial punishment and, C
accordingly, we repel the said submission.
~ 38. The next facet of the said submission pertains
to retrospective applicability. The submission has been put
forth on the ground that by transfer of cases to the Special
Courts under the Orissa Act in respect of the accused persons D
who are arrayed as accused under the 1988 Act, have been
compelled to face harsher punishment which is constitutionally
not permissible. It is contended that there was no interim
confiscation under the 1988 Act but under the OrissaActthey
have to face confiscation. We have already opined that E
confiscation is not a punishment and, therefore, Article 20(1)
is not attracted. Thus, the real grievance pertains to going
through the process of confiscation and suffering the same
after the ultimate adjudication of the said proceeding which is
subject to appeal. In this context we are required to see the F
earlier provision. The 1988 Act provides for applicability of·
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Section 2 refers
to "interpretation" and in sub-section (1) it is stipulated that
"Schedule offence" in the Ordinance means an offence
specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance; Section 3 deals G
with the application for attachment of property; Section 4
provides for ad interim attachment; Section 5 deals with
investigation of objections to attachment; Section 6 provides
for attachment of property of ma/a fide transferees; Section 7
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A stipulates how execution of orders of attachment shall take
place; Section 8 provides for security in lieu of attachment and
Section 9 deals with administration of attached property.
Section 1Odeals with duration of attachment and Section 11
provides for appeals. Section 13 deals with disposal o~
B attached property upon termination of criminal proceedings.
Section 13(3) reads as f?llows:-
"(3) Where the final judgment or order of the
Criminal Courts is one of conviction, the District
Judge shall order that from the property of the
c convicted person attached under this Ordinance or
out of the security given in lieu of such attachment,
there shall be forfeited to Government such amount
or value as isfound in the final judgment or order of
the Criminal Courts in pursuance of Section 12 to
D
have been procured by the convicted person by
means of the offence, together with the costs of
attachment as determined by the District Judge and
where the final judgment or order of the Criminal
Courts in pursuance of Section 12 to have been
E
procured by the convicted person by means of the
offence, together with the costs of attachment as
determined by the District Judge and where the
final judgment or order of the Criminal Courts has
imposed or upheld a sentence of fine on the said
F
person (whether alone or in conjunction with any
other punishment), the District Judge may order,
without prejudice to any other mode of recovery,
that the said fine shall be recovered from the residue
of the said attached property or of the security given
G
in lieu of attachment."
139. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that under the 1988 Act the accused were liable to face
attachment during trial and forfeiture after conviction but by
H virtue of the Orissa Act they are compelled to face confiscation
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1171
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
as a consequence of which they are deprived of the possession A
and the property goes to the State Government. Learned
counsel for the State would submit that the forfeiture is provided
after the conviction as the property has to be forfeited and
embezzled a_mount requires to be realized but it does not debar
the legislature to provide confiscation of property as an interim B
measure by providing an adequate adjudicatory process. It is
also submitted that the offence under Section 13(1 )(e) h·as its
gravity and, therefore, the stringent interim measure is the
requisite. Alternatively, it is argued that when forfeiture was
prescribed, and attachment of property was provided as an C
interim measure, different arrangement, may be a stringent
one, can always be provided by the legislature.
140. We have already held that confiscation is not a
punishment and hence, Article 20(1) is not violated. Learned
0
counsel for the State would lay stress on the decision in State
·p7
ofAndhra Pradesh and Others v. CH. Gandhi . In that case,
the issue that arose for consideration when the disciplinary
proceeding was initiated, one type of punishment was
imposable and when the punishment was imposed due to E
amendment of rule, a different punishment, which was a .
greater one, was imposed. The High Court opined that the
punishment imposed under the amended rule amounted to
imposition of two major penalties which was not there in the
old rule. Dealing with the issue the Court referred to the rule F
that dealt with major penalties and the rule making power.
Reference was made to the decision in Pyare Lal Sharma v.
Managing Director and others." wherein it has been stated
that no one can be penalised on the ground of a conduct which
was not penal on the date it was committed. Thereafter, the
two-Judge Bench referred to the authority K. Satwant Singh G
v. State of Punjab" wherein it has been held thus:-
:: (2013) 5 sec 111
"(1989) 3 sec 448
AIR 1960 SC 266
H
,_
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2015] 14 S.C.R.
A " ... In the present case a sentence of imprisonment
was, in fact, imposed and the total offines imposed,
whether described as 'ordinary' or 'compulsory',
was not less than the amount of money procured
by the appellant by means of his offence. _Under
B Section 420 of the Penal Code an unlimited amount
of fine could be imposed. Article 20(1) of the
Constitution is" in two parts. The first part prohibits
a conviction of any person for any offence except
for violation of law in force at the time of the
C commission of the act charged as an offence. The
latter part of the article prohibited the imposing of
a penalty greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offence. The offence with which
D the appellant had been charged was cheating
punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code
which was certainly a law in force at the time of the
commission of the offence. The sentence of
imprisonment which was imposed upon the
E appellant was certainly not greater than that
permitted by Section 420. The sentence of fine also
was not greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law which had been in force at
the time of the commission of the offence, as a fine
F unlimited in extent could be imposed under the
section."
141 . Thereafter, the Court referred to Maya Rani Punj
0
v. crf , K. Satwant Singh (supra) and Tiwari Kanhaiyala/
v. err' and eventually held:-
G
" ... The order of compulsory retirement is a lesser
punishment than dismissal or removal as the
pension of a compulsorily retired employee, if
10
(1969) 1 sec 445
71
H (1975) 4 sec 101
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1173
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
eligible to get pension under the Pension Rules, is A
not affected. Rule 9(vii) was only dealing with
reduction or reversion but issuance of any other
direction was not a part of it. It has come by way of
amendment. The same being a lesser punishment
than the maximum, in our considered opinion, is B
imposable and the disciplinary authority has not
committed any error by imposing the said
punishment, regard being had to the nature of
charges. It can be looked from another angle. The
rule-making authority has split Rule 9(vii) into two C
parts- one is harsher than the other, but, both are
less severe than the other punishments, namely,
compulsory retirement, removal from service or
dismissal. The reason behind it, as we perceive, is
not to let off one with simple reduction but to give a D
direction about the condition of pay on restoration
and also not to impose a harsher punishment which
may not be proportionate. In our view, the same
really does not affect any vested or accrued right. It
also does not violate any constitutional protection." E
142. We are absolutely conscious that the said judgment
was delivered in a different context. What is prohibited under
Article 20(1) is imposition of greater punishment that might
have been imposed and prohibition of a conviction of any
person for violation of law at the time of commission of the act. F
We repeat at the cost of repetition that confiscation being not
a punishment does not come in either of the categories. Thus
viewed, the property of an accused facing trial under the 1988
Act could be attached and there can be administration by third
party of the said property and eventual forfeiture after G
conviction. The term "attachment" has been understood by this
Court in Kera/a State Financial Enterprises Ltd. v. Official
Liquidator, High CourtofKerata" in the following manner:-
" (2006) 1o sec 709· H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 'The word "attachmenf' would only mean 'faking into
the custody of the law the person or property of one
already before the court, or of one whom it is sought
to bring before it". It is used for two purposes: (1) to
compel the appearance of a defendant; and (it) to
B seize and hold his property for the payment of the
debt. It may also mean prohibition of transfer,
conversion, disposition or movement of property
by an order issued by the court."
143. The legislature has thought it proper to change the
C nature and character of the interim measure. The property
obtained by ill-gotten gains, if prima facie found to be such by
the authorised officer, is to be confiscated. An accused has
no vested right as regards the interim measure. He is not
protected by any constitutional right to advance the plea that
D he cannot be made liable to face confiscation proceedings of
the property which has been accumulated by illegal means.
That being the litmus test, the filament of reasoning has to
rest in favour of confiscation and not against it. Therefore, we
are of the considered view that the provision does not violate
E any constitutional assurance.
144. The next aspect we shall address to whether the
procedure for confiscation as envisaged under Section 13 to
Section 15 suffers from any lack of guidance. We have already
F opined that the State Government is only required to scrutinize
the "offence" and authorises the Public Prosecutor for the
purpose of filing an application for confiscation. The Public
Prosecutor, as mandated under Section 13(2) is required to
file an application indicating the reasons on the basis of which
G the State Government believes that the delinquent officer has
procured the property by means of the offence. Thus, reasons
have to be stated in the application and it has to be clearly
averred that the property has been acquired by means of the
offence as defined under the Orissa Act. The authorised officer
H is a judicial officer and is required to afford reasonable
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1175
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
opportunity of hearing to the accused or any other person A
operating the property on his behalf. Discretion is also
conferred on the authorised officer to record a finding whether
all or any other money or property in question have been
acquired illegally. The said authority can drop the proceedings
or direct confiscation of all or some properties. Affording of a B
reasonable opportunity of hearing is not confined only to file
affidavits. We are inclined to think that when the delinquent is
entitled to furnish an explanation and also put forth his stand,
he certainly can bring on record such material to sustain his
explanation. Confiscation proceeding as provided under sub- C
section (3) of Section 15 is subject to appeal. In view of the
scheme of the Orissa Act, there can be no shadow of doubt
that there is ample guidance in the procedure for confiscation.
It is not a proceeding where on the basis of launching of
prosecution, the properties are confiscated. Therefore, the D
proceedings relating to confiscation cannot be regarded as
violative of article 14 because conferment of unchecked power
or lack of guidance.
145. Learned counsel for the appellants have laid
emphasis on the phraseology used in Section 15(3) of the E
Orissa Act. The said provision stipulates that where the
authorised officer records a finding under the Section that any
money or property or both have been acquired, by means of
the offence, he shall make a declaration subject to the
provisions of the Act, then they stand confiscated to the State F
Government "free frbm all encumbrances". It is submitted that
once the property stands confiscated to the State Government
free from all encumbrances, the right, title and interest of the
person concerned is extinguished. Tl;le said submission, in
our consideration, is on a very broad canvass. As the scheme G
of the Orissa Act would show, the confiscation is interim in
nature. It does not assume the character of finality. Same is
the position in Bihar Act. The accused is entitled to get return
of the property or money in case he succeeds in appeal before
H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A the High Court against the order passed by the authorised
officer or in the ultimate eventuality when the order of acquittal
is recorded. The words "free from all encumbrances'', in the
context, are to be given restricted meaning. It is to repel third
party claims and negate attempts to undo and invalidate the
B temporary or interim confiscation till the final decision. It cahnot
be equated with the provisions in other statutes where by
operation of law the property vests with the State Government
free from all encumbrances where the rights of the person
concerned get obliterated.
c 146. While dealing with the word "encumbrance", this
Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tarsem Singh and
others" has opined that:-
"... means a burden or charge upon property or
D claim or lien upon an estate or on the land.
"Encumber" means burden of legal liability on
properly, and, therefore, when there is
encumbrance on a land, it constitutes a burden on
the title which diminishes the value of the land ...
E 147. In Su/ochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune
Municipal Transport and others" dealing with the word
"encumbrance", the Court has expressed thus:-
"Encumbrance" actually means the burden caused
by an act or omission of man and not that created
F by nature. It means a burden or charge upon
property or a claim or lien on the land. It means a
legal liability on property. Thus, it constitutes a
burden on the title which diminishes the value of
the land. It may;t>e a mortgage or a deed of trust or
G a lien of an easement. An encumbrance, thus, must
be a charge on the property. It must run with the
property. (Vide Collector of Bombay v.
:: AIR 2001 SC 3431
H (2010) a sec 467
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1177
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistr/', H.P. SEB v. Shiv K. A
Sharma" and Al Champdany Industries Ltd. v.
Official Liquidator')."
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the words "free
from all encumbrances" in the provision under assail has to be
conferred constricted meaning, for it is interim confiscation B
and definitely it is not equivalent to vesting. Hence, the
contention on the said score founders.
148. The next plank of submission relates to creation of
a dent in the basic concept of fair trial, which is an integral c
part of Article 21 of the Constitution. In Dayal Singh v. State
of Uttaranchai' the Court, while dealing with the concept of
fair trial, expressed the view that where our criminal justice
system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven
guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal 0
trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society
and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution; and then alone
can law and order be maintained.
149. In Rattiram v. State ofM.P." it has been held:-
"39 .... Fundamentally, a fair and impartial trial has E
a sacrosanct purpose. It has a demonstrable object
that the accused should not be prejudiced. A fair
trial is required to be conducted in such a manner
which would totally ostracise injustice, prejudice,
dishonesty and favouritism. F
x x x x x
62 .... Decidedly, there has to be a fair trial and no
miscarriage of justice and under no circumstances,
prejudice should be caused to the accused but, a G
;: AIR 1955 SC 298
(2005) 2 sec 164
77
(2009) 4 sec 486
76 .
,, (2012) 8 sec 263
(2012) 4 sec 516 H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A pregnant one, every procedural lapse or every
interdict that has been acceded to and not objected
at the appropriate stage would not get the trial
dented or make it unfair. Treating it to be unfair
would amount to an undesirable state of pink of
B perfection in procedure. An absolute apple-pie
order in carrying out the adjective law, would only
be sound and fury signifying nothing."
150. In the instant case.. it is urged that when the
concerned person/accused discloses his stand before the
C authorised officer serious prejudice is likely to be caused to
him during trial. The principal grievance is that he is compelled
to disclose his defence before trial though he is entitled in law
not to do so. This submission is founded on the protection
given under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
D
151. There can be no cavil over the proposition that an
accused has the right to maintain silence and not to disclose
his defence before trial. It is worth noting here that the Authorised
Officer is a judicial officer and he is required to deal with
E material for the limited purpose of confiscation. That apart,
there is a statutory protection that the material produced before
the Authorised Officer shall not be used during trial. If we
understand the said provision appositely, it is graphically clear
that the materials produced before the authorised officer are
F not to be looked into during trial, and the trial is to proceed in
accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and subject
to the provisions of the 1988 act as long as there is no
inconsistency. The trial Judge is a senior judicial officer and
has a trained judicial mind. If something is not to be looked
G into, it shall by no means be looked into. The constitutional
protection under Article 20(3) .is in no way affected. That apart,
Article 20(3) of the Constitution speaks about the guarantee
against "testimonial compulsion". In the case of M.P. Sharma
v. Satish Chandra"' the court has observed thus:-
80
H AIR 1954 SC 300
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1179
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"Broadly stated the guarantee in Article 20(3) is A
against "testimonial compulsion". It is suggested
that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person
standing his trial for an offence when called to the
witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine
the content of the constitutional guarantee to this B
barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob
the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss
the substance for the sound as stated in certain
American decisions. The phrase used in Article
20(3) is "to be a witness". A person can "be a C
witness" not merely by giving oral evidence but also
by producing documents or making intelligible
gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See
Section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. "To be
a witness" is nothing more than "to furnish evidence" D
and such evidence can be furnished through the
lips or by production of a thing or of a document or
in other modes.
• ••
E
The phrase used in Article 20(3) is "to be a witness"
and not to "appear as a witness". It follows that the
protection afforde.d to an accused in so far as it is
related, to the phrase "to be a witness" is not merely
in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court
F
room but may well extend to compelled testimony
previously obtained from him. It is available
therefore to a person against whom a formal
accusation relating to the commission of an offence
has been levelled which in the normal course may
G
result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other
persons in other situations does not call for
decision in this case".
H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 152. Tested on the aforesaid enunciation of law, it can
be stated with certitude that the right conferred on an accused
under Article 20(3) is not violated. We reiterate that whatever
is produced before the authorised officer is not to be looked
into by the trial court and neither the prosecution nor the
B defence can refer to the same. That is the statutory command.
Therefore, the submission astutely canvassed by the learned
counsel for the appellants is sans substance.
153. The next aspect which needs to be addressed is
C the v,alidity of Section 17 of the Orissa Act which deals with
appeal. The said provision reads as follows:-
"Section 17. Appeal:-(1)Any person. aggrieved
by any order of the authorised officer under this
Chapter may appeal to the High Court within thirty
D days from the date on which the order appealed
against was passed.
(2) Upon any appeal preferred under this section
the High Court may, after giving such parties, as it
thinks proper, an opportunity of being heard, pass
E such order as it thinks fit.
(3)An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall
be disposed of within a period of three months from
the date it is preferred, and stay order, if any, passed
F in an appeal shall not remain in force beyond the
prescribed period of disposal of appeal."
[underlining is ours]
154. Learned counsel for the appellants have seriously
G criticised Section 17(3) on the ground that the said provision
interferes with the judicial proceeding by laying down that the
said order shall not remain in force beyond the prescribed
period of disposal of appeal. It appears that such a contention
was not raised before the High Court, for the High Court has
not dealt with the same. However, Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1181
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
senior counsel for the respondent-State, would submit that in A
the Orissa Special Courts Act, 1990 (Orissa Act 22 of 1992)
contained a similar provision .and the Division Bench in
Kishore Chandra Patel (supra) construed the said provision
by opining that the provision in Section 18(3) limiting the
operation of stay order, if any, passed in appeal for a period of B
three months does not prohibit passing of a fresh stay order
beyond that period, if a case for the same were to be made
out to the satisfaction of the Court. At this stage, we may note
with profit that the High Court of Patna has dealt with Section
17(3) of the BiharAct which provides that an appeal shall be C
disposed of preferably within a period of six months from the
date it is preferred, and stay order, if any, passed in an appeal
shall not remain in force beyond the prescribed. period of
disposal of appeal. It has been held therein that it would not be
proper to construe that the prescribed period of disposal of D
appeal is only six months but it is only desirable that the appeal
should be disposed of within six months and the stipulation
that the order of stay is not to remain in force beyond the period
of disposal of appeal would not mean that the order of stay will
lose its force during the pendencyofthe appeal. The High Court E
has laid emphasis on the word "preferably'' to interpret that the
intention of the legislature is that the appeal should be
disposed of within six months but it does not mean that the
appeal has to be disposed of within six months. The High Court
has further observed that it would not be proper to construe F
that the prescribed period of disposal of appeal is only six
months and, therefore, the stay order passed by the High Court
will lose its force automatically on expiry of any particular period.
It has placed the said interpretation to save the constitutionality
of the provision. We have referred to the Bihar Act at this G
juncture as the provisions are similar to the OrissaAct except
the word "preferably" used in Section 17(3) of the Bihar Act.
There can be no doubt that no statutory provision can postulate
that an order of stay shall not remain in force beyond the period
H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A meant for disposal of the appeal. The High Court of Patna has
construed the provision by laying down stress on the word
"preferably''. We are disposed to think that the interpretation
placed on the similar provision of the Orissa Act in Kishore
Chandra Patel (supra) is correct and, therefore, we are
B disposed to hold that the order of stay if passed in an appeal
would not debar or prohibit the High Court to pass a fresh stay
order beyond that period, if a case is made out to the
satisfaction of the court. We would like to add that the
legislative intent is that an appeal has to be tried absolutely
C expeditiously regard being had to the scheme of the Orissa
Act as well as the Bihar Act and the person grieved by the
order passed by the authorities should not enjoy an order of
stay beyond that period. Proper construction that has to be
placed would be that the High Court while exercising the power
D of appeal can extend the period of stay subject to its
satisfaction unless there is justifiable reason for vacating the
say. This provision, needless to say, has to be read in this
manner to save it from the vice of unconstitutionality. However,
we may clearly state that the High Court being a superior court
E having the power of judicial review shall see to it that the real
purpose of the legislation is not defeated. It will be advisable
and that the Chief Justice should demarcate a Bench for one
day to hear these appeals. And accordingly, we so request.
Needless to say, the learned Judge will endeavour to dispose
F of the appeal within the time frame.
155. Learned counsel forthe appellants have seriously
criticized the proviso appended to Section 18(1) of the Orissa
Act. To appreciate the assail, Section 18(1) is reproduced in
entirety:-
G
"Section 18(1). Where any money or property or
both have been confiscated to the State
Government under this Act, the concerned
authorised officer shall order the person affected,
as well as any other person, who may be in
H
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1183
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
possession of the money or property or both to A
surrender or de!iver possession thereof to the
concerned authorised officer or to any person duly
authorised by him in this behalf, within thirty days
of the service of the order:
Provided that the authorised officer, on an B
application made in that behalf and being satisfied
that the person affected is residing in the property
in question, may instead of dispossessing him
immediately from the same, permit such person to
occupy it for a limited period to be specified on c
payment of market rent to the State Government
and thereafter, such person shall deliver the vacant
possession of the property."
Criticizing the said provision, it is urged by them that by 0
virtue of the provision pertaining to confiscation the delinquent
officer/accuse.d is compelled to face a situation where he will
be disposed from his dwelling house, the so called protection
given under the proviso is an illusory one. It is argued that
when the money is confiscated, it is well- nigh impossible on E
his part to deposit the market rent to occupy even for a limited
period. The argument, if we permit ourselves to say so, suffers
from a fundamental fallacy. Under the scheme of the Orissa
Act, the confiscation does not take place immediately on
lodging of an FIR. A detailed procedure has been stipulated F
which is contain adequate safeguards and thereafter the order
is given effect to. The proviso appended to Section 18( 1) of
the Orissa Act is an exception to give protection to the
concerned officer to remain in possession of the house where
he resides fora certain period. The person concerned is given G
protection subject to certain terms. It is to be borne in mind
that the confiscation is associated with the property
accumulated from the ill-gotten gain. It is urged that though
proviso gives protection, it actually mocks at Article 21 of the
Constitutions. We do not think so. The property is confiscated H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A by way of an interim measure by taking recourse to law which
we have held to be constitutionally valid. The submission that
the man will be in the streets is an argument in frustration but
not founded on reason. Be that as it may, when by determination
of the authorised officer for the purpose of confiscation, the
B plea that he will be ousted from the dwelling house which would
play foul of Article 21 of the Constitution, really does not
commend acceptance. A person cannot be allowed to indulge
in corruption and conceive of protection to his dwelling house
after a finding is recorded in the proceeding for confiscation
C that it is constructed or purchased by way of corrupt means.
The person concerned can satisfy the authorised officer or in
appeal that the dwelling house where he is residing is acquired
from his known sources of income. In such a situation, we are
afraid that we cannot accept the submission advanced by
D the learned counsel for the appellants and, accordingly, the
same stands rejected.
156. The next provision which is challenged is Section
19 of the Orissa Act that deals with refund of confiscated money
or property in the event of the order of confiscation being
E modified or annulled by the High Court in appeal. The said
provision is necessary to be reproduced:- ·
"19. Refund of confiscated money or property.-
Where an order of confiscation made under section
15 is modified or annulled by the High Court in
F
appeal or where the person affected is acquitted
by the Special Court, the money or property or both
shall be returned to the person affected and in
case it is not possible for any reason to return the
propertv. such person shall be paid the price thereof
G
including the money so confiscated with the interest
at the rate of five per cent per annum thereon
calculated from the date of confiscation."
(underlining is ours)
H
YOGENDRAKUMARJAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1185
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
157. The challenge of the appellants pertains t<:> the part A
we have underlined. It is submitted that the said provision is
confiscatory in nature and is violative of Article 300A of the
Constitution. It is urged that the said provision enables the State
Government to appropriate the property of a person who
eventually succeeds in appeal or ultimately is acquitted. B
Learned counsel for the State would submit that when there is
no possibility of being returned for a reason which is beyond
the control of the State Government, then the said provision
will come into play. The High Court of Patna while dealing with
the similar provision contained in Section 19 of the Bihar Act C
in order to save its constitutionality has held that in case the
confiscated property is not returned by showing good reasons
that it is not possible to do so, the interest payable must be at
the .usual bank rate prevailing during the relevant period for a
loan to purchase or acquire similar property. It has further D
observed that said direction is necessary in order to save the
vires of Section 19 of the Bihar Act and otherwise the relevant
provision would fall foul of provisions of the Constitution. The
view expressed by the High Court of Patna is not correct. The
provision has to be construed in a seemly manner. The E
language used is "in case it is not possible for any reason to
return the property". Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State of Bihar would submit that in case this
Court read down the said provision, and, if it is not inclined to
do so, it may apply doctrine of severability. Mr. A. Saran, F
learned senior counsel for the appellants, per contra, would
contend that it is the obligation of the State Government to
return the money as it is and there cannot be a stipulation to
return the value with five per cent interest, for it is absolutely
obnoxious. G
158. The language employed in Sedion 19 of the Orissa
Act has to be appreciated regard being had to the scheme of
the said Act. The legislative intent is to curb corruption at high
places and requires the accused persons to face trial in the
Special Court constituted under the Orissa Act in a speedier H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A manner and also to see that the beneficiaries of ill-gotten
property or money do not enjoy the property or money during
trial. That apart, the intention is also clear that the Government
should not appropriate the money or the property to itself in
any manner. Confiscation, we have already opined, is done
B as an interim measure. The words "free from all encumbrances"
have been given a restricted meaning by us as it follows from
the language used in the OrissaAct. Section 19 clearly lays
down return of the confiscated money or property or both. It
conceives of three situations, namely, modification of the order
C of confiscation, or annulment of confiscation, or the eventual
acquittal. In these conditions, the money or property or both
are required to be returned. The words, which we have
underlined in Section 19, seem to us, cannot be conferred a
wide meaning. They cannot be allowed to convey that the State
D will not return the property. The key words are "in case it is not
possible" and "for any reason". It will be an assumption to think
that "for any reason" would mean any kind of subjective reason.
In certain statutes or enactments the words "for any reason"
can be attributed a wide meaning to subserve the legislative
E purpose. The term "possible", in our considered opinion, may
not be given the stature or status of "impossible", which is
absolute in its connotation, but the word "possible", as we
perceive, in itself contains certain concept of reason. The
reason ascribed by the State has to withstand scrutiny in the
F strict sense. As indicated before, it may not be conceived in
absolute terms like the word "impossible", for law does not
countenance an impossible thing to be done. Therefore, the
construetion that is required to be placed on this provision is
that the State must clearly demonstrate that it has a real and
G acceptable reason and hence, it is not possible not to return
the money or property or both. Such an interpretation shall
save the provision from the vice of unconstitutionality. We think
so as there may be situations where it may not be possible on
the part of the State to return the property. No illustration need
H be given because it would depend upon facts of each case.
YOGENDRAKUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1187
[DIPAK MISRA, J.)
The argument by the appellants is that in such a situation the A
payment of value determined and the rate of interest provided
in the provision is absolutely irrational and the State can
appropriate the property. The aforesaid submission, though
on a first blush, may look quite attractive, but on a deeper
scrutiny, is bound to melt into insignificance. It is to be B
remembered that the proceeding is initiated for confiscation
in respect of the property acquired by the offence as described
under the Act. It is done on the basis of certain material brought
on record. Ultimately the proceedings may not be successful
but if it is not possible to return the property the State cannot c
be asked to compensate more than what the legislature has
thought to be appropriate. It cannot be equated with
acquisition. The entire proceeding is initiated regard being·
had to the ·rampant corruption at high places in the present
day society. Therefore, to think that submission that there has D
to be adequate compensation would be against the larger
public interest. Thus understood, the challenge to the provision
on the backdrop of Article 300A has .to be treated as
unacceptable and we do so. We may hasten to add that any
order passed under this provision is always subject to judicial E
review by the superior courts.
159. We have at the beginning had mentioned that both
the Orissa Act and the Bihar Act are almost similar and,
wherever required we have adverted to the same while dealing
with the Orissa Act. Barring the same, we do not find there is . F
any distinction between the two enactments and, therefore,
analysis made by us as regards the Orissa Act will apply to
the Bihar Act.
160. It is significant to note here that before the High G
Court of Patna the validity of a Rule was assailed but the
application was not pressed and the High Court has made
certain observations. We intend to put the controversy to rest.
Rule 12 of the 2010 Rules provides for Special Courts to follow
summary procedure. Rule 12(a) and (f) read as under:-
H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A "(a) On institution of a case or transfer of pending
proceeding to the Special Courts, trial shall be held
in summary manner.
(f) The delinquent public servant shall be put on trial
and shall be afforded opportunity to lead evidence
B in support of his defence. If the special court, on
the evidence of delinquent public servant is, prima
facie, satisfied that he has been able to discharge
his onus, the prosecution shall be called upon to
lead its evidence to prove the charges against the
C delinquent public servant."
161. When the Bihar Act provides to follow the warrant
procedure prescribed by the Code for trial of cases before a
Magistrate, the 2010 Rules could not have prescribed for
summary procedure. The rules have to be in accord with the
D Act. The rules can supplement the provisions of the Act but
decidedly they cannot supplant the same. Therefore, we
declare that part of Rule 12 which lays down that the learned
Special Judge shall follow summary procedure, is ultra vires
the Bihar Act.
E
162. In view of the foregoing analysis, we proceed to
summarise our conclu~ions:-
(i) The Orissa Act is not hit by Article 199 of the
Constitution.
F (ii) The establishment of Special Courts under the Orissa
Act as well as the Bihar Act is not violative of Article 247
of the Constitution.
(iii) The provisions pertaining to declaration and effect
G of declaration as contained in Section 5 and 6 of the
Orissa Act and the Bihar Act are constitutionally valid as
they do not suffer from any unreasonableness or
vagueness.
(iv) The Chapter Ill of the both the Acts providing for
H confiscation of property or money or both neither violates
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR 1189
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Article 14 nor Article 20(1) nor Article 21 of the A
Constitution.
(v) The procedure provided for confiscation and the
proceedings before the Authorised Officer do not cause
any discomfort either to Article 14 or to Article 20(3) of B
the Constitution .
. (vi) The provision relating to appeal in both the Acts is
treated as constitutional on the basis of reasoning that
the power subsists with the High Court to extend the order
of stay on being satisfied. c
(vii) The proviso to Section 18(1) of the Orissa Act does
not fall foul of Article 21 of the Constftution.
(viii) The provisions contained in Section 19 pertaining
to refund of confiscated money or property does not o
suffer from any kind of unconstitutionality.
(ix) Sub-rules (a) and (f) Rule 12 of the 2010 Rules being
violative of the language employed in the Bihar Act are
ultra \/ires or anything contained therein pertaining to the
summary procedure is also declared as ultra vires the E
BiharAct.
163. Consequently, the appeals arising out of the
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa are
dismissed and the appeals which have called in question the
legal validity of the judgments and order passed by the High F
Court of Patna are allowed to the extent indicated hereinbefore.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,
we refrain from imposing any costs in the civil appeals.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "corruption"Sign in to search