Agricultural Income Cannot Be Ignored While Calculating Disproportionate Assets: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that “nonconsideration of the agricultural income of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law” while determining disproportionate assets under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009. The Court further held that where a public servant dies during pendency of confiscation proceedings, such proceedings “ought also to come to an end upon the death of the...
The Patna High Court has held that “nonconsideration of the agricultural income of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law” while determining disproportionate assets under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009. The Court further held that where a public servant dies during pendency of confiscation proceedings, such proceedings “ought also to come to an end upon the death of the delinquent public servant” and cannot continue merely on the basis of documents supplied by a discharged co-accused.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing an appeal challenging the order of confiscation dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Authorized Officer, Special Court No. 1 (Vigilance) under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, Bhagalpur.
The impugned order directed confiscation of the movable and immovable properties of the appellant and her late husband, who was opposite party no. 1 before the Authorized Officer. The proceedings originated from Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 1995 registered against the appellant's husband, who was working as Superintending Engineer with the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, alleging acquisition of disproportionate assets of Rs. 13,14,742/- during the check period from February 1963 to May 1989.
After investigation, charge-sheet No. 14 of 2004 was filed, wherein the appellant was also arrayed as an accused for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 109 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegation against the appellant was that she had deliberately abetted her husband in acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The Court held that the Authorized Officer, while passing the confiscation order, had not appreciated other sources of income of the appellant and her husband, including agricultural income, loan and rental income. The Court further observed that certain properties acquired beyond the check period, which were protected under Section 16 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, were also considered while calculating disproportionate assets.
The High Court noted that the husband of the appellant had submitted documents showing ownership of inherited agricultural land measuring 22.30 acres issued by the Circle Officer, Charpokhari. The certificate reflected estimated monthly agricultural income of Rs. 70,000/-, amounting to Rs. 18,90,000/- during the check period. The Authorized Officer had declined to accept the agricultural income on the ground that there was no definite and conclusive report establishing such income and that the appellant's husband had not produced income tax returns for the relevant period.
The Court observed that affidavits of persons actually involved in agricultural practice on the land of the deceased officer were also not considered. It further noted that the appellant's income from agricultural land, rental income and housing loan were also not taken into consideration despite her filing income tax returns in March 1989 explaining such income. It observed:
“Thus, it appears from the impugned judgment that authorized officer, as per his own convenience, failed to accept the contentions of the opposite party/appellant.”
The Court held that the approach adopted by the Authorized Officer was “arbitrary, unfounded and cannot be appreciated”. It accordingly held:
“Thus, this Court is of the considered view that nonconsideration of the agricultural income of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law in view of Nirankar Nath Pandey case (supra).”
The Court also noted that certain properties beyond the check period were taken into account. It observed that the inventory list of movable properties was prepared on 22.04.1995, beyond the check period, and that construction of the second floor of the house, which was completed after the check period, was also not considered.
On the issue of continuation of confiscation proceedings after the death of the public servant, the Court noted that late Dwarika Nath Rai died on 31.03.2016, whereas the confiscation order was passed on 30.09.2016. The Court held that this deprived the deceased officer of an opportunity of fair enquiry, amounting to violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, if the criminal trial abates after the death of the accused, “then, certainly, the confiscation proceedings, being essentially in the nature of an inquiry, ought also to come to an end upon the death of the delinquent public servant”.
Accordingly, the Court held that the confiscation order was liable to be “annulled”/set aside both on account of non-consideration of relevant sources of income and the death of the public servant during pendency of the confiscation proceedings.
Cause Title: Smt. Lalita Devi v State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 898 of 2016
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s: Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate; Ms. Nisha Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Abha Singh, APP.
For the Vigilance: Mr. Akshat Arghya, Advocate; Mr. Anil Singh.