Calling for mandatory attachment of property suspected to be bought with corrupt money, the Madras High Court has urged an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, while setting aside the confiscation of about 88 acres that a convicted Sub-Registrar had sold off before trial.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Madurai: The Madras High Court has held that attachment of properties believed to have been acquired through corrupt means must be made mandatory, and has recommended amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after finding that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department had invoked the attachment procedure in only 10 of 144 cases pending trial [V. Thangavel v. Inspector of Police].
Justice B. Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench allowed a batch of appeals by third-party purchasers and set aside a trial court’s order confiscating their land, holding that confiscation under Section 452 CrPC could not be sustained without prior attachment under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944.
The case
A Sub-Registrar and his wife were convicted by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli, in Special Case No. 91 of 2011, for amassing wealth of Rs 31,30,504 disproportionate to their known sources of income during the check period from April 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Each was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. Their appeals against conviction are pending before the High Court.
The trial court also confiscated about 88 acres of land in Kodaikanal and Tiruchirappalli. By then, the accused had sold the properties to intermediaries, who in turn sold them to the appellants. The appellants challenged the confiscation, contending that the trial court had ordered it without giving them notice or a hearing.
Attachment is the route, not Section 452 CrPC
The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, pointing to how the law has since changed. Section 5(6) of the PC Act, 1988 lets Special Judges exercise the powers of a District Judge under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, and Section 18A, inserted on July 26, 2018, expressly applies the Ordinance’s attachment provisions to offences under the Act. Where property is involved in a PC Act offence, the Court held, the procedure under the Ordinance must be followed.
It also held that the power under Section 452 CrPC extends only to property produced before the court or in its custody, not to every property connected with an offence. Setting aside the confiscation, the Court said:
“In the absence of attachment under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, this Court holds that the order of confiscation passed by the trial Court under Section 452 CrPC cannot be sustained.”
The investigating agency was given liberty to approach the appellate court hearing the criminal appeals against conviction and seek orders for attachment of the properties in the manner known to law.
Years of delay by the Vigilance Department
The Court traced how the case had dragged on at the investigation stage. It noted that the detailed enquiry ran for nearly five years and ended only on September 16, 1999, and that the Vigilance Department then took another two years to register the FIR, in Crime No. 6 of 2001, on August 17, 2001. “In the meantime, the accused officer and his wife had transferred substantial portions of the properties,” the Court observed, adding that the very purpose of attachment is “to prevent properties suspected to have been acquired through corrupt means from being dealt with during the pendency of the proceedings.”
A report placed before the Court showed that of 144 cases pending trial, the Ordinance had been invoked in only 10, and no attachment had been carried out in the remaining 134.
A call to amend the law
“In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that necessary amendments have to be carried out under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the attachment of properties, believed to have been obtained through corrupt means and using amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income, has to be made mandatory.”
The Court directed that copies of the judgment be sent to Union and State authorities, from the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to the Central Vigilance Commissioner, for action on the suggested amendments.
Why The Mandatory Attachment Judgment Matters
Disproportionate assets cases often take decades, and a conviction means little if the property has already passed through several hands by the time the court rules. The judgment makes clear that the law already provides a tool for this, attachment under the 1944 Ordinance read with Section 18A of the PC Act, and that investigators cannot skip it and expect the trial court to confiscate property at the end under Section 452 CrPC.
It also protects purchasers who were never heard before their land was taken, while leaving the State free to seek attachment through the proper procedure. The figure that attachment was used in just 10 of 144 pending cases, and the call to make it mandatory, puts the onus on lawmakers and the Vigilance Department to close the gap.
Case Title: V. Thangavel v. Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Trichy [Crl.A(MD) No. 930 of 2025 and connected appeals]
Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate S. Senthil for the appellant; State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan, assisted by Government Advocate A. Robinson, for the respondent