Confiscation under general criminal procedure applies where a special anti-corruption law is silent on disposal of seized property.

Where a special anti-corruption statute is silent on confiscation, the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply in full force under Section 4(2), so a criminal court may order confiscation after trial under Section 452. The Special Judge therefore had jurisdiction to confiscate property seized from the accused, and the order was upheld because the confiscated property formed the basis of the conviction and no lack of application of mind was shown. The confiscation order was valid, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to order confiscation of the property seized from the appellant and whether the discretion to order confiscation was properly exercised.

Analysis: The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 contained no provision governing confiscation or the manner in which such an order could be made. In the absence of any contrary or inconsistent provision in the special statute, the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied in full force by virtue of Section 4(2). Section 452 of the Code empowered the criminal court, after conclusion of the trial, to make an order for disposal of property by confiscation. The appellant's conviction under Section 5(1)(e) was founded on possession of the very property that was confiscated, and no lack of application of mind was shown in making that order.

Conclusion: The Special Judge had jurisdiction to order confiscation, and the confiscation order was validly passed.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment is silent on confiscation, the general criminal procedure provisions enabling confiscation apply, and a criminal court may order confiscation of property proved in the course of the offence.

---