2010 (2) TMI 1208 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions of Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding attachment and forfeiture of properties in cases of local offences.

Summary:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the quashing of proceedings for attachment and forfeiture of properties of the respondents under Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applications were based on properties derived from criminal activities, and the respondents challenged the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court quashed the proceedings, stating that Chapter VII-A applies only to offences with international ramifications, not local offences. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision after considering the provisions and objectives of Chapter VII-A.

The State argued that Section 105-C and D can apply to any property in India derived from the commission of an offence, even if the offence is local. However, the High Court held that Chapter VII-A is meant to curb international crimes and terrorism, not local offences. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing that Chapter VII-A is specific to certain offences and not applicable to all offences in India.

The Supreme Court considered the language and context of Chapter VII-A, noting that it refers to contracting states and specific types of offences. The Court highlighted that the chapter's provisions are not meant for local offences like gambling or IPC offences. The Court also pointed out that other central laws address properties earned from specific offences like drug trading or smuggling, indicating that Chapter VII-A is not intended for all offences in India.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court approved the High Court's judgment, confirming that Chapter VII-A applies to specified offences with international ramifications and does not extend to all local offences. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the decision to quash the proceedings for attachment and forfeiture of properties in this case.