Death Of Public Servant Does Not End Confiscation Proceedings Against Spouse Under Bihar Special Courts Act: Supreme Court
Court notes that the statutory scheme under the BSCA contemplates only two situations where confiscated property may be returned.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (BSCA) do not automatically abate upon the death of the accused public servant, especially where properties are held in the name of close relatives such as a spouse.
The Court further noted that the statutory scheme under the BSCA contemplates only two situations where confiscated property may be returned: if the confiscation order is modified or annulled by the High Court; or if the accused is acquitted by the Special Court.
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh while setting aside the Patna High Court’s judgment, observed, “Section 15 BSCA itself provides that confiscation order be made after hearing the delinquent officer or any other person through whom the property or money in question is being held. When it provides that the other person in the equation can also be prosecuted insofar as the illegitimately procured property or money is taken away, the plain requirement is that at the time of initiation of the proceedings the person on whom proceedings under Section 13 of the PC Act are to be initiated, must be alive and noticed about such proceedings. The death of such a person does not extinguish the fact that confiscation order has been made after hearing the parties”.
Placing reliance on P. Nallammal v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559, it noted, “…Still further, we may observe that it is a settled position in law that a non-public servant can be proceeded against when the initial case is registered under Section 13 of PC Act by virtue of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code”.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal appeared for the appellant and Sumit Srivaastava, AOR appeared for the respondent.
The matter pertained to proceedings against the wife of a deceased government officer accused of amassing disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The authorised officer had earlier ordered confiscation of multiple movable and immovable assets, finding that the income and investments claimed in the wife’s name were not satisfactorily explained and appeared to be linked to illicit gains of the public servant.
However, the High Court had set aside the confiscation proceedings on the ground that the main accused had died during the pendency of the appeal, and the BSCA did not provide for continuation of proceedings or substitution of legal heirs. It held that continuation of confiscation would result in a “travesty of justice”.
The Supreme Court, rejecting this reasoning, clarified that confiscation proceedings under the BSCA are distinct from criminal trials and do not automatically abate upon death. The Court drew a clear distinction between “abatement” and “acquittal,” observing that abatement is merely a procedural consequence of death in criminal proceedings and does not determine the merits of the case.
While referring to Gurmail Singh v. State of U.P (2022) 10 SCC 684, it observed, “It is clear from the above pronouncement that there is a clear distinction between acquittal and abatement of proceedings. The latter takes place since the death of the accused leaves no other possibility open. It is not a comment on the merits of the matter. In the present case, the death would not let the respondent ‘off the hook’ since she had been proceeded against for holding the delinquent officer’s, allegedly illegally begotten property right from the time that the authorities became alive to his alleged misdeeds”.
On the argument that the BSCA does not provide for substitution of Legal representatives and so the proceedings cannot continue, the Bench noted, “…Such a submission is entirely misconceived for the respondent had also been put to notice right at the inception of proceedings along with the delinquent officer. We are of the considered view that the only path available to High Court was to decide the respondent’s appeal on merits for that route is the only one available to reach the two possibilities contemplated under this Act”.
A similar order was passed in a connected appeal involving another deceased public servant, reinforcing the principle that confiscation proceedings survive independently against beneficiaries of alleged illegal wealth.
Cause Title: The State of Bihar Thr. Vigilance v. Sudha Singh [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 272]
Appearances:
Appellant: Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR, Nitya Sharma, Apurva Rajora, Rebecca Mishra, Apoorva Rajora, Vanshita Gupta, Ekta Kundu, Advocates.
Respondent: M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR, Sumit Srivaastava, AOR.