JUDGMENT : THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Prayer in Crl.A.No.679 of 2016: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 11 of the Criminal Law [Amendment] Ordinance, 1994, pleased to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2115 of 2013 in Special Case No.44 of 2014, dated 24.06.2014 by Hon'ble Court of Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram. This Criminal Appeal is offshoot of Special Case No.44 of 2014, on the file of Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Villupuram. 2. The respondents 1 & 2 are the husband and wife. The 1st respondent was Member of the Legislative Assembly and Minister of Higher Education and Mines between 2006-2011. A case in Crime No.7 of 2011 by detachment of V & A.C, Villlupuram was registered against the 1st accused for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act. 3. On completion of investigation, final report was filed against A1 for acquiring and possessing properties disproportionate to known source of income and as against A2 for holding property acquired illegally on behalf of A1. The allegation against the respondents 1 & 2 was for holding the properties worth Rs.1,75,51,468/- disproportionate to the known source of income. 4. The Special Court, Villupuram, took cognizance of the offence and tried the respondents. Pending trial, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in exercise power under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 vide G.O.Ms.No.488 Public (SC) department, dated 23.05.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.561 Public (SC) Department, dated 11.06.2013, authorised the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, to attach the properties mentioned in the annexures. Accordingly, interim attachment was made. When the matter later came up for consideration, to make the ad interim attachment order absolute till termination of criminal proceedings, it was contended by the respondents that the Special Court lack jurisdiction to attach the property under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944. 5. The point canvassed by the respondents/accused before the Special Court was that, (a). The power to attach the properties under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 is vest only with the District Judge. The Special Court designated to try offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is not the District Court to derive the power of attachment under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944. (b). The power to attach the properties under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 is vest only with the District Judge. The Special Court designated to try offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is not the District Court to derive the power of attachment under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944. (b). The Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can exercise its power under Section 5(6) of the Act only on commencement of the trial and not prior to the trial. In the instant case, the Special Court order of interim attachment is void since the Special Court lack power. 6. The Special Court, on considering the submissions held that, the Special Court has no power under Section 3 or Section 4 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944, to pass order of attachment of the properties. The said power is vest only with the District Judge and therefore, the earlier order of ad interim attachment passed on 19.07.2013 not made absolute. Further, it was observed that on the day of passing the order, the trial did not commence and therefore, the Special Court decline to exercise power under Section 5(6) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which confers power to the Special Court to try offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, also to attach properties suspected to be proceeds of crime. 7. The said order of the trial Court refusing to make absolute the ad interim attachment is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.679 of 2016. 8. The Appellant/State, in the grounds of Appeal had stated that Section 5 (3) (a) & (b) of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944, restrains the District Judge from releasing the attached property or withdraw the order of attachment unless he is satisfied that the said person not by means of the said offence procured any money or other property. 9. In this case, the ad interim attachment was made by the Special Court under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944. Under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 power to attach is vested with District Judge. However, under Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, gives power to Special Court to exercise all the powers of District Judge conferred under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. 10. The relevant provision of Law is:- “5. Procedure and powers of special Judge. - 1.... 2.... 3.... ....... (6). However, under Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, gives power to Special Court to exercise all the powers of District Judge conferred under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. 10. The relevant provision of Law is:- “5. Procedure and powers of special Judge. - 1.... 2.... 3.... ....... (6). A special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under this Act, shall exercise all the powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.” 11. Thus, it is clear that for the purpose of implementing provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, the Special Court shall deemed to be District Court. Therefore, the trial Court view giving a restricted meaning to the expression only while trying an offence Special Court can exercise the powers under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 and holding that when the ad interim attachment order passed, the trial did not commence is an absurd finding. 12. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the trial commences immediately after the Court take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, ad interim attachment of the properties annexed ought to have been made absolute. 13. Thus, it is submitted that the ad interim attachment order passed by the Special Court exercising the power of District Judge under Section 5(6) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is legally sustainable and failure of the trial Court to make the attachment absolute is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Learned Counsel for the respondents/accused 1 & 2 submitted that, there is no error in the order of the trial Court refusing to make ad interim attachment absolute. He further, contended that, after dismissal of the application to order the attachment absolute till the termination of the Criminal Proceedings. The trial completed in Special C.C.No.44 of 2014 and both the accused were acquitted by the order of the trial Court dated 18.04.2016. Thus, the reason for attachment had become otiose. Therefore, nothing survives in this Appeal even though the Appeal against acquittal is filed by the State in Crl.A.No.53 of 2017. 15. This Court had occasion of dealing the main appeal against the order of acquittal passed in Crl.A.No53 of 2017. Thus, the reason for attachment had become otiose. Therefore, nothing survives in this Appeal even though the Appeal against acquittal is filed by the State in Crl.A.No.53 of 2017. 15. This Court had occasion of dealing the main appeal against the order of acquittal passed in Crl.A.No53 of 2017. The order of the acquittal is reversed by this Court in the appeal and both the respondents/accused 1 & 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) each. This judgment was passed on 21.12.2023. The trial Court after dismissal of attachment has acquitted both the accused A1 & A2. From that day onwards, it is correct that there was no reason to attach the properties. After acquittal, both the respondents/accused 1 & 2 and the properties held by them got clear from stigma. However, the appeal against acquittal though being the continuation of the Criminal proceedings, the judgment of conviction by the Appellate Court will not bring status quo ante in so far as the proceedings of attachment. 16. The Appellate Court conviction cannot revive the earlier attachment or the withdrawal. A new and separate proceedings has to be initiated by the prosecution. In this case, apart from sentence of three years S.I, the respondents/Accused 1 & 2 are directed to pay fine of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) each. 17. The disproportionate assets held by the respondents/accused 1 & 2 been arrived at Rs.1,72,63,468/- out of which Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) is imposed as fine. While so, in the opinion of this Court, though the order suffers legal infirmity, the trial Court order is not interfered. However, the dismissal shall not be an impediment to take fresh action of attachment in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal No.679 of 2016 is dismissed.