In The State of Bihar Through Vigilance vs. Sudha Singh (2026), Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. K. Singh delivered a 17-page long judgement dated March 20, 2026, wherein, it set aside the 19-page long judgment dated September 27, 2023 in Sudha Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar Through Vigilance (2023). The High Court had heard the appeal filed under Section 17 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 by the appellants against the judgment and order dated August 5, 2013 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Authorized Officer, Special Court No. 1, Muzaffarpur in Confiscation Case No. 06 of 2012, whereby and where under the trial court had passed an order for confiscation of the property of the appellants as per description in Schedule A and B of the petition under Section 13 of the Act.
A Vigilance P.S. Case was instituted in 2009 under Sections 7/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 409, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against
appellant no. 2/opposite party no. 1 and another on the basis of complaint received from one Rajeev Ranjan. The allegation against opposite party no. 1, the Inspector, Weights and Measurement, Muzaffarpur was for demanding bribe. A raid was conducted and opposite party no. 1 and another person were caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.1,700/- from the complainant. After conducting enquiry, the authorities came to know that opposite party no. 1 had amassed property worth Rs.10,50,501/- which was disproportionate to his known source of income. After submission of charge sheet in Vigilance P.S. Case of 2009, a regular FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case dated August 10, 2009 under Sections 7/13(2) read with section 13(1)(E) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was instituted against opposite party no. 1. During investigation it was found that opposite party no. 1 had amassed movable and immovable property in his own name as well as in the names of his wife (appellant no. 1 herein), sons and other family members. After further investigation the disproportionate assets have been found to be worth Rs.12,96,516/-. A charge sheet was submitted in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 84 of 2009 before the court of Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna. Thereafter, application has been moved before the learned Authorized Officer under Section 13 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 and prayer has been made for confiscation of property as shown in Schedule A and B of the petition. Notices were issued and served upon three opposite parties and O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants in the instant appeal. Opposite Party No. 3 died before investigation of the case and her death certificate was brought on record.
The Authorized Officer considered the material before him partially allowed the confiscation in favour of the State holding that except for certain items in Schedule A and B, rest of the items were acquired by illegal means by O.P. No.1/Appellant No. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated August 5, 2013 of the Authorized Officer, the appellants had filed the appeal in the High Court.
The counsel of the appellant had submitted before the High Court that after death of the public servant confiscation proceeding does not remain maintainable since the case of the prosecution would not fall under Section 13 of the Act, 2009 and the properties of Sudha Singh, the appellant no. 1 cannot be confiscated by the State Government as the appellant no. 1 was not a government servant and she was not accused in vigilance case. He also submitted that after death of concerned public servant, the confiscation proceeding cannot proceed in respect of alleged disproportionate assets acquired by him in absence of statutory provisions and on this aspect learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court dated February 4, 2015 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 225 of 2014, Parmeshwari Sinha vs. The State of Bihar through Vigilance.
The issue raised by the appellant before the High Court was as to whether the confiscation proceedings could continue against the appellant after the death of public servant against whom there was allegation of acquiring disproportionate assets since the vigilance case against public servant was dropped whereas the other appellant before the High Court was not even accused in the case lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and was not proceeded under the Act of 2009.
Justice Jha had observed:"If the statutory provisions do not provide for continuance of proceeding even after death of public servant against whom the proceedings for acquisition of disproportionate assets has been initiated and who has been facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and undergoing trial in the Act of 2009, no reliance of any of the authorities cited supra would be of help to the State since the facts and the law are quite different from the decision cited above. Similarly, the legal heirs of deceased public servant could not be substituted in his place for the purpose of continuation of confiscation proceedings. Moreover, the contention that the proceedings under Act, 2009 are civil in nature would not cut much ice since the Act of 2009 is a complete code and when it does not provide for
such situation, this Court cannot read something which is not there and prescribe a procedure which has not been provided by the legislature in its wisdom. So reliance placed on Shiv Shankar Varma & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar through Vigilance (supra) is misconceived and not applicable to the facts of this case."
He added:"Moreover, when Section 19 of the Act, 2009 itself provides that upon acquittal by the Special Court or in case of modification or annulment or the order of confiscation under Section 15 of the Act, the money or the property is liable to be returned to the person affected, such order needs to be withdrawn when the proceedings are dropped or cannot result in conviction due to death of the accused whose property is attached. Since the appeal is deemed to be continuance of trial and presumption of innocence of the accused would continue and could not vanish upon the death of the accused, so hardly find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the State."
Justice Jha concluded:"The confiscation proceedings were initiated against the appellants after issuance of notice under Section 14(1) and (2) of Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009. After proceedings, the learned Authorized Officer partially allowed the application filed by the State through Public Prosecutor for confiscation of property. Since the 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. 17. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 5th August, 2013 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum- Authorized Officer, Special Court No. 1, Muzaffarpur in Confiscation Case No. 06 of 2012 become unsustainable against the appellant, Sudha Singh, and is liable to be set aside and, hence, the same is set aside."
Supreme Court heard the appeal at the instance of the State of Bihar which took exception to the judgment by Justice Jha, which was allowed in favour of Sudha Singh, the Respondent, 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) read with 13(1)(d), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and 409, 201, 120-B, Indian Penal Code 18602 Vigilance P.S. Case No. 84/2009 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, had passed away on January 18, 2018. The High Court had held that the Bihar Special Courts Act (BSCA), 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.
Supreme Court considered the question 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.
The case of the State was that the Justice Jha’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 Bihar Special Courts Act is different and distinct from the Prevention of Corruption Act for it provides that if the 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 Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar 2016 (3) SCC 183 and as such the general principle of abatement of criminal proceedings upon death of the accused, will not apply.
Justice Karol found the answer to the question: when does a proceeding before a Court of law, abate in Gurmail Singh vs. State of U.P. (2022) 10 SCC 684, wherein Justice C.T Ravikumar 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. 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.”
Justice Karol observed: "....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." He added: "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. 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."
Justice Karol pointed out 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." The argument 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."
