Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Of Jayalalithaa's Legal Heirs Seeking Return Of Her Properties Confiscated In DA Case

A single judge, Justice V Srishananda, dismissed the appeal filed by J Deepak and J Deepa. 

The trial court had vide its order dated July 12, 2023 dismissed the application filed under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Contentions of the appellants

The appellants contended that Accused no 1 (Jayalalithaa) was convicted by the trial court, acquitted by the High Court and later on, the appeal filed by the State stood abated upon her death. Hence, they contended that Jayalalitha cannot be treated as a convict and her property must be restored.

Further, they contended that the assets seized by the prosecuting agency also includes the assets which were possessed by A1 earlier to the check period and unless there is segregation made by the prosecution as to what are the assets possessed before check period and after check period by A1, there cannot be an order of attachment order which could be permitted to continue, having regard to the fact that conviction order was set aside by this court and could not be held in any manner as proceedings against the accused stood abated.

The prosecution opposed the appeal submitting that the Apex Court, even after noting that the proceeding against A1 was terminated on account of her death, allowed the confiscation order passed by the trial court to operate.

HC Findings:

The bench referred to the Apex Court order and noted that there is a clear finding recorded by the Apex Court that the order of confiscation and other directions has to be adhered to by all concerned, including the LRs(Legal Representatives) of deceased A1.

Further, it said, “In the case on hand, the trial court judge did not dismiss the application filed by the appellant on the question of locus but it is dismissed on merits. Therefore the right to be exercised as the legal representative of deceased A1 has been recognised by the trial judge in the impugned order.”

Considering the issue of whether applications filed Under Sec 452 CrPC could have been entertained by the trial judge. The court said, “As could be seen from the discussion made by the Apex court order, the attachment had ultimately ended in confiscation. There is a vast difference between attachment pending trial and the post-trial order of confiscation.”

It added, “The apex court in its order in para no 536 took into consideration the development taken place that is the death of A1 was cautious enough in observing that there is peremptory termination of criminal proceedings as regards A1 is concerned. Despite considering the said aspect in para 536 of the order and in para 542, it has been specifically held that the trial court order is restored in full including consequential directions.”

Thus it held, “Further interpretation of the order of Apex court by this court in this appeal is thus clearly impermissible, besides being opposed to judicial ethics.”

The Court also noted that there are no details forthcoming in applications filed before the trial court about assets earned by A1 prior to the check period. The counsels for appellants weree not in a position to place on record which assets seized by the prosecuting agency were said to be acquired before the check period.

The court held, “Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any proper pleading, proof this court cannot pass any orders stating that the assets seized by the prosecution prior to the check period can be excluded from the confiscation.”

However, it clarified that “It is always open for the appellants to place such pleadings and proof to establish that the seized asset contained the assets earned by A1 in pre-check period and if any such proof is placed on record, the trial court is bound to consider the same in accordance with law.”

It added, “In the event of the prosecution agency further proceeding with the confiscation proceedings in auctioning the property which may contain the assets which were possessed and seized by the prosecution agency prior to the check period, the value thereof would be entitled by the appellants herein.

Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal saying it was not maintainable as the attachment has already ended in confiscation proceedings. The appeal sans merit and consequently they are dismissed.

After the hearing ended the court orally suggested the legal heirs consider starting a foundation in the name of late Jayalalithaa. The Court observed “Alexander went with an empty hand, with one hand outside the grave to represent that he can't carry anything from here, definitely you can carry one thing. A large number of poor people are there in this society, make Jayalalitha foundation, spend money, make them feel happy.”

It added “The puniya you earn now you can take it back. Rightly, wrongly the court has now declared you as legal heirs you are entitled, do it, serve the poor, not only you will be having the satisfaction, but also the departed soul will rest in definitely in peace. Do such something.”

It also expressed that “What has come to you is the gift of the god, be satisfied with what was available, lots of negative things would be there, one would not flourish with that is ill-gotten.”

Appearance: Advocates Dr. M. Sathya Kumar, Uday & S Sathish Kumar for Appellants.

Sr Adv Sandesh J Chouta a/w Advocate Kiran S Javali for Respondents.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 11

Case Title: J DEEPA AND Superintendent of Police

Case No: CRL.A 1973/2023