MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has suggested the state government amend the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by mandating attachment of properties which are believed to have been obtained by the accused through corrupt means.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed other legislations like the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, etc, contain provisions that prohibit offenders from holding illegally acquired properties and also mandate the attachment of such properties.
However, the Prevention of Corruption Act does not have any specific provision for confiscation, except Para 77 of the Vigilance Manual that permits attachment through invocation of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, the judge noted.
“Only if such strong and deterrent measures are prescribed under the Act itself, the government can effectively undertake the attachment of properties and put 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,” he opined and suggested amending the Act.
Sub-registrar’s appeal allowed in corruption case
Justice Pugalendhi made the observations while setting aside the order passed by a special court in Tiruchy two years ago, directing confiscation of properties belonging to a sub registrar and his wife who were convicted in a corruption case.
Allowing an appeal filed by the sub registrar V Thangavel challenging the special court’s order, the judge noted the properties had been confiscated by the trial judge under Section 452 of CrPC. Section 452 CrPC empowers the trial court, upon conclusion of an inquiry or trial, to order confiscation of the property or a document which is produced before it or in its custody, or is involved in an offence.
However, if the property has neither been produced before the court nor is in its custody, then Section 452 CrPC will not apply, the judge explained. Moreover, the power of confiscation under Section 452 CrPC cannot be invoked independently, overlooking the specific statutory mechanism provided under the Prevention of Corruption Act by way of the 1944 ordinance, he added.
Since the investigation authorities failed to attach the properties under Section 3 of the ordinance, the judge set aside the confiscation order.
