Bihar Special Courts Act | Confiscation Proceedings Can Proceed Against Wife After Death Of Public Servant With Illicit Assets : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that upon the death of a delinquent officer found to have amassed disproportionate assets, a confiscation proceeding under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, can still be sustained against his wife, a non-public servant.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Patna High Court's judgment, which had declared the confiscation proceedings against the Respondent-delinquent officer's wife as abated under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, upon the death of his husband/delinquent officer.

Disagreeing with the High Court's observation, the bench observed that when the initial case is registered under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 107 IPC (Abetment to Commit an Offence), then a confiscation proceeding can well proceed against the non-public servant even after the death of the delinquent officer.

“(delinquent officer's) death would not let the respondent (wife) '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. 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.”, the court observed, referencing P. Nallammal v. State, (1999) 6 SCC 559.

Background

The case arose from vigilance proceedings initiated by the State of Bihar against Ravindra Prasad Singh, a government officer accused of amassing disproportionate assets between 1975 and 2009. Two FIRs were registered against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, alleging accumulation of illegal wealth worth over ₹12.96 lakh, along with multiple immovable properties and financial investments.

Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in 2009. Subsequently, proceedings for confiscation of assets were initiated under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009. Notices were issued not only to the accused officer but also to his wife, Sudha Singh, in whose name several assets were held.

In 2013, the Authorised Officer ordered the confiscation of various movable and immovable properties, finding that the income and investments claimed by the wife, allegedly from stitching and tailoring work, were unsupported by credible evidence. The authority also noted non-compliance with service rules requiring disclosure of assets by the public servant.

The confiscation proceedings were challenged by the deceased delinquent officer and his wife before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the delinquent officer passed away, leading to the abatement of the confiscation proceedings by the High Court against the wife.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the State of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned ruling, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that since the Respondent-wife was also issued the notice at the inception, alongside the delinquent officer, moreover, the Bihar Special Court's Act does not bar the action against any person holding property allegedly acquired through corrupt means, including family members, the confiscation proceedings can well proceed against the Respondent.

“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.”, the court observed.

The Respondent supported the High Court's view, arguing that since the substitution of a legal representative is impermissible under the BSCA, the confiscation proceedings against her stand abated. Rejecting this argument, the Court observed, “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.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, restoring the Respondent's appeal to the High Court's file for adjudication on the merits.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF BIHAR THR. VIGILANCE Versus SUDHA SINGH (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Umesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Peeyush Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Munish Kumar Gaur, Adv. Mr. Naved Anwar, Adv. M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, AOR