SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 609

MARKANDEY KATJU, S.B.SINHA
V. K. Puri – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. — Leave granted.

2. What would be the territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court within the meaning of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988 Act”) is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 1.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 556 of 2006.

3. Appellant was an officer working in the Customs Department. Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report against him purported to be for commission of an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, viz., acquiring of assets disproportionate to the appellant’s known sources of income for the check period of 1.06.1988 to 22.02.2002. Contention of the appellant is that, as he had never been posted in Delhi during the aforementioned period, the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to his case. The learned Special Judge as also the High Court has rejected the said contention of the appellant.

4. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the ingredients of an offence involving Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top