The Supreme Court has held that confiscation proceedings against properties allegedly acquired through corruption do not automatically abate upon the death of the accused public servant. The Court set aside judgments of the High Court that had terminated such proceedings and directed that the matter be reconsidered on merits.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh disagreed with this interpretation. The Court clarified that proceedings under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 are distinct from criminal trials and are not extinguished merely due to the death of the accused.
The case arose from appeals filed by the State of Bihar challenging High Court decisions that had quashed confiscation proceedings initiated against the wife and relatives of a deceased government official accused of amassing disproportionate assets. The High Court had ruled that since the main accused had died during the pendency of proceedings, the confiscation process could not continue in the absence of specific statutory provisions allowing such continuation.
The bench emphasized that confiscation proceedings are civil in nature and aimed at recovering illegally acquired assets, rather than punishing the offender. Therefore, the principle of abatement applicable to criminal cases upon the death of an accused does not automatically apply in such matters.
Importantly, the Court noted that the law permits action not only against the public servant but also against any person holding property on their behalf, including family members. It observed that where such individuals had been issued notice and given an opportunity to explain the source of assets, proceedings against them could validly continue irrespective of the death of the principal आरोपी.
The Court further clarified that the Bihar Special Courts Act explicitly provides only two situations where confiscated property may be returned: if the confiscation order is modified or annulled by a higher court, or if the accused is acquitted. The absence of any provision dealing with the death of the accused indicates that such an event does not automatically nullify confiscation.
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the proper course was to adjudicate the matter on merits rather than terminate proceedings solely on the ground of death. It underscored that abatement of criminal proceedings does not equate to a finding of innocence and cannot be used to shield allegedly illicit assets from scrutiny.
The Court restored the appeals to the High Court for fresh consideration and directed that they be decided in accordance with law. The ruling reinforces the legal framework aimed at preventing the retention of allegedly ill-gotten wealth and ensures that proceedings against benami or proxy holders of such assets are not frustrated by the death of the principal accused.
Case Details
Case Title: The State Of Bihar Versus Sudha Singh
Citation: JURISHOUR-458-HC-2026(Ker)Â
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 7454 of 2025
Date: 20/03/2026
Read More: Supreme Court Quashes Gangsters Act FIR Against Alleged Gang Leader Over Procedural Lapses
