A retired executive engineer challenged a State letter authorizing confiscation proceedings under the Special Courts Act while his corruption trial was pending. The court held seizure and confiscation are distinct, no double jeopardy arises from parallel proceedings under two statutes, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5232 of 2018
======================================================
Awadhesh Kumar Mandal S/o- Late Dhaneshwar Mandal, R/v- 202, Monika Apartment Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna at present retired Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad -SC8 : Mr. Ruchikar Jha, AC to SC8 For the EOU : Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Adv. : Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Adv. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Senior counsel, Mr. V.N.P. Sinha for the Economic Offence Unit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2018(5) dt.30-01-2024 2/5
the investigating officer has seized the entire property of the petitioner after lapse of 5 years, issuance of such letter for confiscation which has already in the custody of the Government by way of seizure, is illegal and not permissible.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2018(5) dt.30-01-2024 3/5
of the said letter, special public prosecutor has been authorized to proceed for confiscation under the law laid down. As such, the said letter is absolutely in accordance with law.
“13. Confiscation of property. - (1) Where the State Government, on the basis of prima-facie evidence, have reasons to believe that
Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2018(5) dt.30-01-2024 4/5
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, authorize the Public Prosecutor for making an application to the 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.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2018(5) dt.30-01-2024 5/5
going on, on the basis of two different statutes, and therefore, it is not the case in contradiction of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Prakashmani/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State Government's letter authorizing the Public Prosecutor to seek confiscation under Section 13(1) of the Special Courts Act, 2009 was legal despite prior seizure.
Whether confiscation proceedings alongside a Prevention of Corruption Act prosecution violate Article 20(2) against double jeopardy.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Awadhesh Kumar Mandal
The State of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
The Deputy Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
The Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Unit, Patna, Bihar
Dr. Anshuman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
