Death of Accused Before Conviction Amounts to ‘Deemed Acquittal’: Orissa High Court Says Confiscation Cannot Continue Without Guilt Established”

“No Conviction, No Confiscation – Presumption of Innocence Survives Death” - In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional rights and due process, the Orissa High Court held that the death of an accused before conviction in a corruption trial renders confiscation of their property legally unsustainable. The Court clarified that even without an acquittal, abatement of trial due to death results in a “deemed acquittal,” reinstating the presumption of innocence.

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra emphasized: “Legally, the accused died as an innocent person... in other words ‘not convicted’ or ‘deemed acquitted’. The confiscation of property under the Orissa Special Courts Act being contingent upon the conviction of the accused, the only corollary is that the property under confiscation is liable to be released.”

Late Suryanarayan Behera, a public servant, was accused under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing wealth disproportionate to his known income between 1990 and 1995. The Special Court passed a confiscation order on 16.04.2012, declaring his properties to be acquired by unlawful means.

An appeal against the confiscation (CRLA No. 298 of 2012) remained pending when Behera died on 04.06.2021, leading to abatement of the criminal trial. His legal heirs (the appellants) filed an application under Section 19 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006, for the release of the confiscated properties, which the Authorized Officer rejected on the ground that the appeal was still pending.

Court's Analysis on the Nature of Confiscation Proceedings
The High Court held that confiscation under the Orissa Special Courts Act is “intrinsically connected with the outcome of the trial.” The death of the accused prevents any final adjudication on guilt. Therefore, the legal foundation for maintaining the confiscation order no longer exists.
“There exists no lawful basis to sustain an order of confiscation which was passed solely on the anticipation of such conclusion of the trial.”

Justice Mishra noted that the statutory scheme under Sections 13 to 19 of the Orissa Special Courts Act contemplates confiscation only in conjunction with a conviction.
“Continuation of confiscation proceedings and retention of the property despite the abatement of the trial offends the principle of fairness and violates the constitutional right of the legal heirs to property.”

Section 19 Not Limited to Acquittal: Broad Scope Recognized
Rejecting the reasoning of the Authorized Officer, the Court held that Section 19 is not confined to post-acquittal situations. It also covers scenarios where the basis of confiscation ceases to exist, including death.
“The Authorized Officer is not rendered powerless; rather, he is vested with the authority to redress the wrongful deprivation of property when the presumption of guilt no longer holds legal currency.”

In this context, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Renubala & Ors. v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), holding: “When the Authorized Officer has the jurisdiction to release property confiscated after acquittal, there is no reason as to why he would lack jurisdiction after the death of the person affected.”

Trial Abatement Means No Conviction – Confiscation Cannot Survive
Justice Mishra observed that the accused died during trial, and in legal contemplation, this means the person was “not convicted”. Thus, retention of confiscated property was unconstitutional: “Although abatement of trial is not the same as acquittal, doctrinally, the situation could be termed as ‘deemed acquittal’.”

The Court categorically held that continuing confiscation in such a scenario is unlawful.
Setting aside the order of the Authorized Officer dated 10.09.2024, the Court directed: “The matter is remanded back... to decide the application under Section 19 of the Act afresh in accordance with law.”

This judgment represents a resounding assertion of the rule of law and presumption of innocence, even after death. The Orissa High Court rightly held that confiscation must stand on the foundation of proven guilt, which cannot be presumed posthumously.
“There was no escape under law for the Authorized Officer to pass such orders in accordance with law... once the trial stands abated after the death of the accused.”

Date of Decision: 05.05.2025