Home  /  Prevention of Corruption Act  /  Section 29

Section 29: Amendment of the Ordinance 38 of 1944

Prevention of Corruption Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1988
Section 28 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 30

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 29

Section 29 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 effectuates statutory amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance 38 of 1944), harmonizing property attachment and forfeiture mechanisms with the 1988 Act. By inserting references to PC Act offenses into the Schedule to the 1944 Ordinance, it empowers Special Judges to order the interim attachment, restraint, and eventual confiscation of corruptly acquired movable and immovable assets during the pendency of trial.

  • Inclusion of PC Act Offenses in the 1944 Schedule: Formally incorporates modern PC Act offenses into the Schedule of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, enabling investigative agencies to initiate freezing proceedings against ill-gotten wealth.
  • Concurrence of Attachment Powers in Special Judge: Replaces references to the District Judge in the 1944 Ordinance with the Special Judge, consolidating both criminal adjudication and civil asset attachment powers within a single judicial officer under Section 5(6) and Section 29.
  • Preventive & Restitutionary Mechanics: Designed to prevent corrupt officials from transferring, dissipating, or concealing assets prior to conviction, ensuring funds remain available for fine recovery and state confiscation.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • U. Subhadramma v. State of A.P. (2016) 7 SCC 797: The Supreme Court held that proceedings for attachment under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 as amended by Section 29 PC Act are intended to secure property for confiscation upon conviction; if the accused dies during trial before a final order of conviction is passed, the criminal proceedings abate and the interim attachment orders must be recalled.
  • State of M.P. v. Babbu Rathore (2020) 2 SCC 577: The Supreme Court affirmed that the provisions of the 1944 Ordinance amended by Section 29 PC Act provide an essential statutory mechanism to strip corrupt public servants of their illicit gains, harmonizing civil attachment with criminal penology.
  • K.P. Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala (2001) 3 SCC 451: The Supreme Court observed that the attachment procedure under the 1944 Ordinance read with the PC Act requires strict adherence to natural justice, requiring the state to produce prima facie evidence establishing a direct nexus between the attached property and the alleged corrupt offense.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When facing an interim attachment notice under the 1944 Ordinance r/w Section 29 PC Act, examine whether the investigating agency has established a specific nexus between the attached property and the alleged corrupt offense. If legitimate ancestral property or assets acquired prior to the check period are attached, file objections under Section 4 of the 1944 Ordinance demanding immediate release of untainted assets.

Section 28 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 30