Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944

The Supreme Court examined whether the phrase “any property” in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes immovable property. It held that the provision confers power only to seize movable property, as the word “seize” implies taking physical custody, which is impossible for immovable assets. The Cou…

The Supreme Court allowed appeals against the acquittal of A2 to A4 (Sasikala, Sudhakaran, Elavarasi) in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court had convicted them for conspiracy and abetment with A1 (Jayalalitha, since deceased) in amassing assets worth Rs.66.65 cro…

The petitioners, senior public servants accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the constitutionality of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, which created special courts for s…

The case concerned attachment of properties under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 in a large‑scale fraud involving the father of the appellants, who died before trial, and his son Ravi Sinha, who was convicted in one case and faced trial in another. The State sought to make the interim attachment orders ab…

Ramachandraiah was charged under IPC sections 409, 468 and 471 for misappropriating Rs. 6,57,355.90. He died in 1991 while the trial was pending; the trial court nevertheless recorded a finding that he alone had committed the offence, though he could not be convicted. The State then invoked Clause 3 of the Criminal Law…

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (as amended in 2003), arguing that it encroached upon Union legislative competence (entries 43‑45 of List I) and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitutio…