REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.           OF 2008 Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5252 of 2006

N. Naveen Kumar and Ors. ….Appellants  

Versus

State of A.P. ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is  to the order passed by a learned Single

Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by

the appellants.  

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows;

The  appellants  are  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  accused  N.

Ramakrishnaiah in C.C. No.64 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Special

Judge, for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. He was charged for the offence

under  Section  5  (1)(e)  read  with  Section  5  (2)  of  the  Prevention  of

Corruption Act,  1947 (in short the ‘Old Act’)  possessing the pecuniary

resources disproportionate to the known sources of income. The accused

worked as Executive Engineer as on the date of search  of his house and

other properties.  Evidence was adduced and the Special Judge found the

accused  guilty,  convicted  him  for  the  above  mentioned  offence  and

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a

fine  of  Rs.20,000/-  in  default  to  suffer  simple  imprisonment  for  three

months. The Special Judge also directed that item No 1 to 4 of the assets

shall be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds shall be confiscated to

the State. The accused, being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence

2

imposed by the Special Judge preferred Criminal Appeal No.1524 of 1998.

The  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal.   As  noted  above,  during  the

pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the appellant died, therefore,

the sentence of imprisonment stood abated against the appellant.  

Prayer  before  the  High  Court  was  that  the  appellants  may  be

permitted to deposit entire amount of Rs.6,37,850.92 on such sum as may be

considered appropriate in lieu of the confiscation of Item Nos.1 to 4  of the

assets possessed by the accused in the case.  It was pointed out that Item

No.1 was a house property.  The appellants had sentimental attachment to

the  properties.  Stand  of  the  State  was  that  since  Criminal  Appeal  was

dismissed there was no scope for passing the order as the Court had become

functus officio. The appellants’ stand was that Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal  Procedure,  1973 (in  short  ‘Cr.P.C.’)  permitted  the course to  be

adopted.  The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and it was

held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. did not empower the Court to review its own

judgment by exercising inherent powers.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the appellants

are willing to deposit money there is no reason as to why the High Court

3

should not  permit  release of  the properties  in  favour of the  legal  heir  of

deceased accused.  Undisputedly, when the offence was committed Section

5(2) of the Old Act was in force which reads as follows:

“5(2)-  Any public  servant  who commits criminal  misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided  that  the  Court  may,  for  any  special  reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.”  

5. The corresponding Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (in short the ‘Act’) reads as follows:

“Any public servant  who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

6. According to the appellants in an appropriate case the fine amount as

imposed can be enhanced and the custodial  sentence can be reduced. We

need not  go  into  that  question    because Section  16 of  the Act reads as

follows:  

4

“Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine- Where a sentence of fine is imposed under sub-section (2)  of  Section  13  or  Section  14,  the  court  fixing  the amount  of  the  fine  shall  take  into  consideration  the amount or the  value of the property, if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily.”  

7. The High Court has rightly noted that it is the present value of the

properties  which  is  of  relevance  and  not  the  value  of  the  assets  at  the

relevant point of time of seizure. We find no substance in the plea of the

appellants  as  canvassed  in  this  appeal.  It  is  open  to  the  appellants  to

participate in the auction for sale of the properties in question as and when

held.  

8. The appeal is dismissed.  

…………………….…….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………………………..J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi,

5

October 17, 2008   

6