2007 Supreme(SC) 609

2007(3) Supreme 821
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
V.K. Puri — Appellant
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5932 of 2006)
With
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 351 of 2006
Decided on 27-4-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr. Advocate, R.K. Handoo, K.V. Mohan, K.V. Balakrishnan and I.D. Vaid, Advocates.
For the Respondent : A. Sharan, ASG., Amit Anand Tiwari, Vikas Sharma, T.A. Khan and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When situs of property is relevant for purpose of ascertaining known source of income and consequent acquisition of disproportionate assets in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, Special Judge concerned will have requisite jurisdiction to try the case.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(e) — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 178 — Territorial jurisdiction of Special Court in relation to offence under — Appellant was working as Officer in Customs Department — FIR was recorded in Delhi for offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act viz. acquiring of assets disproportionate to appellant’s known sources of income for check period of 1-6-1988 to 22-2-2002 — Appellant was never posted in Delhi during said period — Jurisdiction of Court at Delhi was challenged — Special Judge and High Court rejected the contention — Appeal — Appellant had bank accounts in Delhi and had also immovable property in Delhi — One of ingredients of offence was known sources of income — What was material was that criminal misconduct had been committed during period he held office and not the places where he held offices — For proving offence, known sources of income must be ascertained — Question of finding out the place where offence was committed did not arise — Each Court where a part of offence was committed would be entitled to try an accused — Fact that appellant had part of his known sources of income at Delhi would confer jurisdiction upon Delhi Courts — Doctrine of purposive construction was to be taken recourse to — No interference was warranted in impugned order.

       Held : One of the ingredients of offences, therefore, is known sources of income. What is material therefor is that the criminal misconduct had been committed during the period he held office and not the places where he had held offices. The fact that the appellant had bank accounts within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts as also immovable properties is not in dispute. Respondent in the chargesheet has clearly pointed out that one of his known sources of income was the rental received by him from his Delhi flat. The same had been given due credit for the purpose of arriving at a prima facie satisfaction that the assets possessed of by him are disproportionate to his known source of income. (Para 15)

       From a perusal of the chargesheet, it furthermore appears that the appellant is said to have acquired large properties including several bank accounts. For the purpose of proving the offence, therefore, on the one hand, known sources of income must be ascertained vis-a-vis the possession of property or resources which were disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it, on the other. Whereas the burden to prove the first part of the offence is on the prosecution, in the event the same is proved, it would shift to the public servant concerned. (Para 16)

       In a case involving Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, what is necessary is as to whether keeping in view the period in question, commonly known as check period, the public servant has acquired wealth which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. It has nothing to do with individual case of bribery. It has nothing to do with a series of acts culminated into an offence. (Para 20)

       Each Court, where a part of the offence has been committed, would, therefore, be entitled to try an accused. The 1988 Act does not bar application of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If application of the provision of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred, the fact that the appellant has a part of his known source of income at Delhi, in our opinion, would confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi Courts. It is one thing to say that only the Special Courts will have jurisdiction to try the offence, but for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to the Special Judge of which place shall have the requisite jurisdiction, the situs of the property may or may not have any relevance. Once the situs of the property is held to have relevance for the purpose of ascertaining his known source of income and consequent acquisition of disproportionate assets, in our opinion, the Special Judge concerned will also have the requisite jurisdiction to try the case. For the said purpose, purport and object for which the 1988 Act has been enacted must be taken into consideration. The doctrine of purposive construction therefor must be taken recourse to. (Para 21)