State Of Bihar Through Vigilance vs Sudha Singh
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 272
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._________OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7454 of 2025)
THE STATE OF BIHAR THR.
VIGILANCE ...APPELLANT(S)
Versus
SUDHA SINGH ...RESPONDENT(S)
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._________OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.)… D.No. 15698 of 2025)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2026.03.20
19:13:53 IST
Reason:
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 1 of 17
Criminal Appeal@ SLP (Crl) 7454 of 2025
2. This appeal at the instance of the State of Bihar takes
exception to Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.662 of 2013, which was
allowed in favour of the Respondent herein in terms of judgment
th
dated 27 September 2023, setting aside attachment proceedings
against the respondent on account of the fact that her husband,
namely Ravindra Prasad Singh, the main accused in two FIRs
viz., Vigilance P.S. Case No.52/2009 under Sections 7, 13(2)
1
read with 13(1)(d), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ,
2
and 409, 201, 120-B, Indian Penal Code 1860 Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 84/2009 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(e), P.C.
Act, had passed away.
3. The period during which the husband of the respondent is
th
alleged to have amassed disproportionate assets was between 28
th
June 1975 to 11 May 2009 to the tune of Rs.12,96,516/-, apart
from several immovable properties and other valuables. A
th
chargesheet was filed on 7 October 2009. The Act under which
the present proceedings came to be before the High Court, came
th
into effect on 8 February 2010. Notice was issued to both the
th
respondent and her husband on 17 August 2012. Having
1
PC Act
2
IPC
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 2 of 17
considered the responses, the Authorised Officer, by order dated
th
5 August 2013 passed in Confiscation Case No.6 of 2012,
ordered confiscation of the assets listed in Schedule A -1 and 2
and B of the petition. The reasoning of the Authorised Officer is
as follows:
17. Now I will come to the defence, taken by O.P.
No. 2 and O.P. No.1, regarding income of O.P. No. 2
generated through her skills in stitching, knitting,
sewing etc. O.P. No. 2 is wife of O.P. No.1 the
delinquent Govt. Servant. Admittedly she boasts of
doing business in stitching, knitting, sewing etc. and
earning huge amounts to the tune of Rs. 13,20,392/-
during the check period and through her personal
income and through other sources as detailed in para
10 and 11 of her rejoinder she invested Rs.13,16,818
out of which amounts of investment in purchase of
land is Rs.9,85,700/- O.P. No.1 was a govt. servant
and as such was subject to Bihar govt. Servant
conduct Rules 1976 and rule 16(2) of which clearly
stipulates that if any member of the Govt. servant’s
family is engaged in any business or trade, he will
inform about the same to the govt. Further rule 19(2)
enshrines that no Govt. servant shall, without prior
information to the Govt. acquire any immovable
properties either in his name or in name of any of his
family members. /further sub rule 4 of Rule 19
stipulates that State Govt. or concerned authority
may be special or general order demand/force its
employees to give detail about acquisition of
movable and immovable properties by him or his
family members and movable properties includes
life Insurance Policies, annual premium of which
exceeds Rs.30,000/-. Now in this case nothing has
been said about compliance of aforesaid rules by
O.P. No.1. Such huge landed properties were
acquired by his wife in Patna district and New Delhi
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 3 of 17
without any information to the Govt. Such huge
amount of investment have been made by his wife in
different L.I.C. Polices but no information was given
to the govt. Sub rule (1) of Rule 19 requires that
every Govt. servant on the date of his first
appointment and thereafter on interval of every 12
months shall given declaration of his assets and
liabilities in the prescribed from which includes
declaration about both immovable and movable
properties acquired by him or in name of his family
members or through ancestral property. But O.P.
No.1 is completely silent about compliance of the
same. The O.P. No. 1 and 2 have been boasting of
filing I.T. Return by O.P. No. 2 but surprisingly O.P.
No. 1 is completely silent about filing of his I.T.
Return or statement of income or T.D.S. (Form 16).
Since he was a Govt. servant he must have been
filing T.D.S. and I.T. Returns but why he has not
filed any of this schedule of income tax or T.D.S. –
Form 16 or I.T. Return filed by him during the check
period.
18. So far as earning of O.P. No.2 is concerned only
proof in respect of that is the filing of I.T. Return
since F/Y 2004-05. Filing of I.T. Return or no proof
of mode of earning unless it is shown that I.T.
department has assessed and verified her income
declaration. I agree with reply of learned Spl. P.P.
that O.P. No.2 claimed to earn such huge amount
during the relevant period and invest so much in
L.I.C. policies. And in purchase of lands but neither
the Investigating Officer found any infrastructure of
the business nor any documentary proof of the
business nor O.P. No.1 and 2 have filed or produced
any documentary proof of the business. In
confiscation proceeding only prima facie proof is
required as the order passed is not final and is subject
to result of the D.A. Case in the special Court as per
Sec. 19 of the Act.
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 4 of 17
… … …
“ 24. However most of the assets are in the
name of wife of O.P. No.2 and all explanation
regarding it are not found satisfactory as already
discussed above.
25. So far as bank accounts and premium amount
of the L.I.C. policies of O.P. No.1 and 2 are
concerned these are also not satisfactorily explained.
The contention regarding receipt of Rs. One lac as
money back is concerned that is out come of the
investment made in the policies which investment
are not satisfactorily only explained as
emanating/invested from known and valid source of
income of O.P. No.1 or 2.
26. Accordingly I hold that excluding assets
shown in item nos.4 to 8 and 11, 12, 13 and 14 of
Schedule A-1 movable assets, item No.1 and 12 of
Schedule A-2 movable assets, items nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 &
8 of Schedule B Immovable assets all other asserts
both movable and immovable are ordered to be
acquired by illegal means of offence by O.P.N
27. Accordingly, I hereby declare that barring the
assets excluded by me from preview of this order in
the forgoing para 26 all other assets both movable
and immovable of Schedule A ‘1’ and ‘2’ and B of
the petition under order, subject to the provisions of
the Act, stand confiscated to the State Government
free from all incumbrancers. This confiscation
proceedings stands disposed of accordingly. “
4. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent and her husband
filed the Criminal Appeal, resulting in the impugned judgment. It
is to be noted that during the pendency of the appeal, Ravinder
Prasad Singh, the Government officer who was the main accused
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 5 of 17
th
passed away on 18 January 2018. The Court held that the Bihar
3
Special Courts Act, 2009 had no provision to continue
confiscation proceedings, upon the death of the public servant
and as such, continuation thereof will lead to a travesty of justice.
With reference to Section 19 of the BSCA, it was observed that
since the Act provides that upon acquittal, property is to be
returned and, in this case, proceedings were dropped, property
could no longer continue as confiscated. The relevant paras of the
impugned judgment are as follows:
“…Since he appellant was never accused in the case
lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and
the Deceased-appellant was the sole accused in the
case, in absence of any provision to sustain the
proceeding in case of death of public servant who
illegally acquired the wealth disproportionate to his
known source of income confiscation proceeding
could not be continued. Moreover, there is no
provision under the law for substitution of legal heirs
or continuance of trial against opposite party when
the public servant has died, such proceeding could
not continue against the present appellant.
Therefore, the order of learned Authorized Officer
against the present appellant for confiscation of
properties could not be upheld since it has not
remain maintainable.”
5. The relevant provisions of the PC Act as also the BSCA
are as follows:
3
BSCA
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 6 of 17
P.C. Act
“ 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—1
[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct,— (a) if he dishonestly or
fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts
for his own use any property entrusted to him or any
property under his control as a public servant or
allows any other person so to do; or (b) if he
intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the
period of his office.
Explanation 1.— A person shall be presumed to have
intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any
person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at
any time during the period of his office, been in
possession of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of income
which the public servant cannot satisfactorily
account for.
Explanation 2. —The expression ‘‘known sources of
income’’ means income received from any lawful
sources.]
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall be not less than 2 [four years]
but which may extend to 3 [ten years] and shall also
be liable to fine.”
BSCA
“CHAPTER III
CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY
13. Confiscation of property.—(1) Where the State
Government, on the basis of prima-facie evidence,
have reasons to believe that any person, who has
held or is holding public office and is or has been a
public servant has committed the offence, the State
Government may, whether or not the Special Court
has taken cognizance of the offence, authorise the
Public Prosecutor for making an application to the
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 7 of 17
authorised officer for confiscation under this Act of
the money and other property, which the State
Government believe the said person to have
procured by means of the offence.
… … …
14. Notice for Confiscation.— (1) Upon receipt of
an application made under section 13 of this Act, the
authorised officer shall serve a notice upon the
person in respect of whom the application is made
(hereafter referred to as the person affected) calling
upon him within such time as may be specified in the
notice, which shall not be ordinarily less than thirty
days, to indicate the source of his income, earnings
or assets, out of which or by means of which he has
acquired such money or property, the evidence on
which he relies and other relevant information and
particulars, and to show cause as to why all or any of
such money or property or both, should not be
declared to have been acquired by means of the
offence and be confiscated to the State Government.
(2) Where a notice under sub-section (1) to any
person specifies any money or property or both as
being held on behalf of such person by any other
person, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon
such other person.
… … …
15. Confiscation of property in certain cases.— (1)
The authorised officer may, after considering the
explanation, if any, to the show cause notice issued
under section 14 and the materials available before
it, and after giving to the person affected (and in case
here the person affected holds any money or
property specified in the notice through any other
person, to such other person also) a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, by order, record a
finding whether all or any other money or properties
in question have been acquired illegally.
… … …
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 8 of 17
(3) Where the authorised officer records a finding
under this section to the effect that any money or
property or both have been acquired by means of the
offence, he shall declare that such money or property
or both shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
stand confiscated to the State Government free from
all encumbrances: Provided that if the market price
of the property confiscated is deposited with the
authorised officer, the property shall not be
confiscated.
… … ….”
(emphasis supplied)
6. The sole question that arises for consideration is as to
whether the confiscated properties in the name of a closed
relative/spouse can continue to remain confiscated with the State,
upon the death of the public servant?
7. We have heard the learned senior counsels appearing for
the State as also the learned counsel for the respondent. The case
of the State is that the High Court’s holding of proceedings of
confiscation being automatically set aside on account of death of
the accused is erroneous for the same does not flow from the
statute. The only situations contemplated for refund of
confiscated money or property are- the modification/ annulment
of the order of confiscation by the High Court in appeal or the
accused is acquitted by the Special Court; the position in BSCA
is different and distinct from the PC Act for it provides that if the
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 9 of 17
accused public servants or family members are unable to explain
the circumstances of the property being in their possession and
ownership, the same are confiscated which is different from
attachment during pendency of trial; confiscation proceedings
are not per se criminal proceedings as per Yogendra Kumar
4
Jaiswal v. State of Bihar and as such the general principle of
abatement of criminal proceedings upon death of the accused,
will not apply; Section 15 would apply to the respondent as well.
Per contra , the respondent’s position as can be made out from
the record is that the procedure provided for under BSCA is not
independent of the PC Act and in the absence of any finding
against the respondent’s husband prior to his death, there would
be a presumption of innocence in place. The factum of
registration of a case against the respondent’s mother-in-law,
despite the fact that she had already passed away, displays a
vindictive attitude of the appellant against respondents; the
proceedings against the respondent would not survive since the
case would not come under Section 13 of the BSCA since she
was not a Government servant.
8. At the outset it must be noticed that the power of
confiscation is provided for in Section 15 of the BSCA which
4
2016 (3) SCC 183
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 10 of 17
postulates that an order for confiscation can be passed by the
authorised officer after issuance of notice, consideration of the
explanation, if any furnished and opportunity of being heard,
being given to the person concerned, that is he who holds the
money or properties specified in the notice, or any other person,
through whom such money/property may be held. That being the
plain position of law, proceedings against the respondent herein,
cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of authority.
9. The question to be dealt with is, when does a proceeding
5
before a Court of law, abate? In Gurmail Singh v. State of U.P. ,
C.T Ravikumar J, observed as under:
27. The term “abatement” or “abate” has not been
defined in CrPC. In the said circumstances, its
dictionary meaning has to be looked into. As relates
criminal proceedings going by the meaning given
in Black's Law Dictionary , 10th Edn., abatement
means “the discontinuation of criminal proceedings
before they are concluded in the normal course of
litigation, as when the defendant dies”. Thus, it can
be seen that the meaning of “abatement” can only be
taken in criminal proceedings as “discontinuation of
such proceedings owing to the death of the
accused/convict pending such proceedings”. In
short, it would reveal that an appeal against
conviction (except an appeal from a sentence of fine)
would abate on the death of the appellant as in such
a situation, the sentence under appeal could no
longer be executed.
5
(2022) 10 SCC 684
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 11 of 17
28. The abatement is certainly different from
acquittal and a mere glance at the proviso to Section
394(2)CrPC, will make this position very clear. The
said proviso reads thus:
“Provided that where the appeal is against a
conviction and sentence of death or of
imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the
pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives
may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant,
apply to the appellate court for leave to continue the
appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not
abate.”
10. 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. 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
6
of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. In P. Nallammal v. State ,
it has been held as follows:
“17. Thus, one of the objects of the new Act was to
incorporate all the provisions to make them more
6
(1999) 6 SCC 559
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 12 of 17
effective. Section 165-A of the Penal Code read like
this:
“165-A. Punishment for abetment of
offences defined in Section 161 or
Section 165 .—Whoever abets any
offence punishable under Section 161 or
Section 165, whether or not that offence
is committed in consequence of the
abetment, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.”
18. Therefore, the legislative intent is manifest that
abettors of all the different offences under Section
13(1)( e ) of the PC Act should also be dealt with
along with the public servant in the same trial held
by the Special Judge.
…
24. Shri Shanti Bhushan cited certain illustrations
which, according to us, would amplify the cases of
abetments fitting with each of the three clauses in
Section 107 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis Section
13(1)( e ) of the PC Act.
The first illustration cited is this:
If A , a close relative of the public servant
tells him of how other public servants
have become more wealthy by receiving
bribes and A persuades the public
servant to do the same in order to
become rich and the public servant acts
accordingly. If it is a proved position
there cannot be any doubt that A has
abetted the offence by instigation.
Next illustration is this:
Four persons including the public
servant decide to raise a bulk amount
through bribery and the remaining
persons prompt the public servant to
keep such money in their names. If this
is a proved position then all the said
persons are guilty of abetment through
conspiracy.
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 13 of 17
The last illustration is this:
If a public servant tells A , a close friend
of his, that he has acquired considerable
wealth through bribery but he cannot
keep them as he has no known source of
income to account, he requests A to keep
the said wealth in A 's name,
and A obliges the public servant in doing
so. If it is a proved position A is guilty of
abetment falling under the “Thirdly”
clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.
25. Such illustrations are apt examples of how the
offence under Section 13(1)( e ) of the PC Act can be
abetted by non-public servants. The only mode of
prosecuting such offender is through the trial
envisaged in the PC Act.”
7
Recently, a co-ordinate bench in P. Nallammal v. State ,
followed the above pronouncement and, while differing on the
eventual conclusion, were ad idiem on the point of law.
11. That apart, 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
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1040
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 14 of 17
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.
12. The BSCA is a special statute, enacted by the State
legislature after having received Presidential assent therefor. The
Act itself provides for the situations in which the money/property
confiscated thereunder can be returned to the owner, making the
legislative intent fairly clear and obvious. They are: (a)
modification or annulment of the confiscation order by the High
Court or (b) acquittal by the Special Court. In other words, no
other possibilities have been accounted for. Here itself we may
deal with the argument advanced on part of the respondent that
the BSCA does not provide for substitution of Legal
representatives and so the proceedings cannot continue. 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.
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 15 of 17
13. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside. The
appeal is restored to the file of the High Court and the same shall
be decided on merits.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.)..D.No. 15698 of 2025
Delay condoned.
1. This appeal is by the State of Bihar challenging the final
judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal(SJ) 1371 of 2022
whereby proceedings against the appellants namely Uma Devi
and Amresh Kunal, were set aside on account of the fact that
Naresh Paswan, the public servant/delinquent officer against
whom proceedings were initiated in terms of P.S. Case No.81 of
2010 Thana-Vigilance, District-Patna, had passed away during
th
the pendency of the appeal on 24 August 2022. In this case, the
accused-delinquent officer had been convicted under Section(s)
7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act by judgment dated
th
27 March 2019 passed by Special Judge, Patna.
2. The High Court proceeded on the same footing as in the
case above that since the appeal of the main accused abates in
their death and the Act does not provide for any provision
continuing the proceedings, the same had to be set aside.
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 16 of 17
3. In view of the discussion made hereinabove in Criminal
Appeal@ SLP (Crl) 7454 of 2025, the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, impugned herein is also set aside. The High Court
shall decide the appeal on merits. The same is restored to the file
of the Court.
In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
……………………………………..………J.
(SANJAY KAROL )
……………………………………………..J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
March 20, 2026
Crl.Appeal..@SLP(Crl)No.7454/2025 Page 17 of 17