madurai high court
Madurai : Madras high court has suggested the state govt to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act mandating attachment of properties believed to have been acquired by the accused through corrupt means.
A case was registered against the appellant, who was a sub-registrar, and his wife, alleging that they had amassed wealth in their names disproportionate to their known sources of income, to the tune of Rs31.3 lakh. the trial court had passed an order under Section 452 of the CrPC confiscating their properties While convicting them. In the absence of attachment under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, the court holds that the order of confiscation passed by the trial court under Section 452 CrPC cannot be sustained.
Therefore, the order of confiscation passed by the trial court is set aside, the judge directed. The court hopes that the government takes the initiative in this regard and suitable amendments are introduced under the Act, as suggested above,” observed Justice Pugalendhi. The judge observed that the issuance of the above circular is a step in the right direction. However, the fact remains that the statutory framework does not presently make such attachment mandatory in every case. The court is of the view that necessary amendments have to be carried out under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the attachment of properties believed to have been obtained through corrupt means and using amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income has to be made mandatory. “Only if such strong and deterrent measures are prescribed under the Act itself, the government can effectively undertake the attachment of properties and put a fear in the minds of those officials, who are enjoying the properties obtained using corrupt means. Otherwise, the provisions would merely remain on paper and without any deterrent effect. The court passed the order while hearing a criminal appeal preferred by V Thangavel. The trial court convicted the couple and sentenced them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.