IMPORTANT POINT
It is open to the Special Judge designated under the PC Act to take cognizance of the offence under Section 120-B and Section 420 IPC.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32- A final judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court cannot be assailed in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution by an aggrieved person. (Para 29)
        Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 136 and 142- Appointment of Special Judge to undertake the trial of cases in relation to all matters pertaining to 2G Spectrum case exclusively- Order under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, in the interest of holding a fair prosecution- There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioners will not get fair trial and may face miscarriage of justice- In absence of any such threat & miscarriage of justice, no interference is called for against the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. (Para 27)
        Constitution of India, 1950-Article 233 and 234- It is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to nominate officer(s) of the rank of the District Judge for appointment and posting as Special Judge(s) under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the PC Act. (Para 26)
        Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 194- Powers of the High Court to direct Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges to try cases made over to them- (Para 16)
        Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 220 - Trial for more than one offence- Person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences (Para 16)
        Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 223- If the Special Judge has jurisdiction to try the co-accused for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, the provisions of Section 223 are attracted. (Para 24)
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 3- When trying any case, a Special Judge can also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3, with which the accused may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the same trial. (Para 17)
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 3- The co-accused have been charged under the provisions of the PC Act, and such offence punishable under the PC Act, the NCT of Delhi is well within its jurisdiction to issue Notification(s) appointing Special Judge(s) to try the 2G Scam case(s). (Para 26)
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 4(3)- Power of the Special Court to try any other offences that may be taken cognizance of under the Cr.P.C.- (Para 17)
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 22-Provisions of the Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under the PC Act, subject to certain modifications. (Para 18)
        Prevention of Money-Laundering Act ,2002- Section 43(2)- Power of the Special Court to try any other offences that may be taken cognizance of under the Cr.P.C.- (Para 18)
       Facts of the case:
        On an SLP filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation the Supreme Court by order dated 16th December, 2010 granted leave and decided to monitor the investigation for causing wrongful loss to the Government by criminal misconduct and criminal conspiracy in distribution of UAS licences in January, 2008. By an order dated 10.2.2011, the Supreme Court indicated that a separate Special Court should be established to try the case(s) relating to 2G Spectrum. The Delhi High Court issued Administrative order dated 15.3.2011 nominating one Mr. Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge to try cases of 2G Scam exclusively. The Government of N.C.T. of Delhi exercising its power under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by notification dated 28.3.2011 designated Mr. Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge to undertake the trial of cases in relation to all matters pertaining to 2G Scam case exclusively. The CBI filed second supplementary chargesheet against the petitioner(s) and other accused persons for the alleged commission of offences under Section 420/120-B IPC. The petitioner(s) assailed the Administrative Order passed by the Delhi High Court dated 15th March, 2011 and the Notification dated 28th March, 2011 issued by the Government of NCT Delhi, both designating Mr. Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge.
       Findings of the Court :
        The co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by the Special Judge. The petitioners are co-accused in the said 2G Scam case. In this background Section 220 of Cr.P.C. will apply and the petitioners though accused of different offences i.e. under Section 420/120-B IPC, which alleged to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, under Section 223 of Cr. P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases.
       Result : Writ petitions dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

The legal document discusses the authority and jurisdiction of Special Judges and courts in the context of criminal cases, particularly those involving complex transactions and offences under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It clarifies that Special Judges, appointed under relevant statutory provisions, are courts of original criminal jurisdiction with powers to try offences under their designated statutes, including offences under the Indian Penal Code when they are connected to the offences specified in the special statutes (!) (!) .

The document emphasizes that the appointment of Special Judges and the establishment of Special Courts are within the constitutional and statutory framework, with the High Court's control being comprehensive and effective to ensure judicial independence (!) . It affirms that such appointments are valid and do not violate constitutional provisions, provided the process adheres to the statutory requirements and the petitioners do not demonstrate any threat of miscarriage of justice or unfair trial (!) (!) .

Furthermore, it underlines that offences under the Indian Penal Code, when connected with offences under special statutes, can be tried together in a single trial under the powers conferred by the relevant laws, such as Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code (!) (!) (!) . The document also states that the proceedings initiated under the notifications and orders are within the legal jurisdiction of the designated Special Judge and that the trial process should proceed on a day-to-day basis to ensure expeditious justice (!) (!) .

Importantly, the Court recognizes that the powers of the Special Judge include taking cognizance of offences upon receiving a complaint or chargesheet, and that the hierarchical and procedural structure allows such courts to function effectively as courts of original jurisdiction, with the High Court's supervisory role being constitutional and statutory (!) (!) .

In sum, the legal framework supports the validity of the appointment and functioning of Special Judges and Courts, their jurisdiction to try connected offences, and the procedural arrangements that facilitate fair and efficient trials, while safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and the rights of the accused.

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi taking cognizance against the petitioners, they have preferred these writ petitions challenging the said order dated 21st December, 2011, Administrative Order dated 15th March, 2011 passed by the Delhi High Court and Notification dated 28th March, 2011 passed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short ‘NCT of Delhi’) designating Mr. Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge to undertake the trial of cases in relation to all matters pertaining to 2G Spectrum case (commonly known as 2G Scam case) exclusively. One of the writ petitions has been filed by an individual and two other writ petitions have been preferred by two Companies who are all accused in 2G Scam case.

2. The factual matrix of the case is given in brief as under:

Acting on various complaints pursuant to grant of UAS licences in 2008, the Central Vigilance Commission after conducting a preliminary inquiry entrusted investigation of the case to the CBI. After preliminary investigation, on 21.10.2009, the CBI lodged FIR RC No. DAI-2009-A-0045 against “unknown officers of the Department of Telecommunications and unknown private persons/companies and others” for causing wrongful loss to the Government by criminal misconduct and criminal conspiracy in distribution of UAS licences in January, 2008. Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Delhi High Court, in Writ Petition (C) No.3522 of 2010, inter alia, alleging that the FIR filed by the CBI on 21.10.2009 was not being investigated and thereby praying that the CBI be directed to investigate the same. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 25.5.2010.

3. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner of the said case, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (for short, ‘CPIL’), filed SLP(C) No.24873 of 2010, wherein this Court by order dated 16th December, 2010 granted leave (C.A.No.10660 of 2010) and decided to monitor the investigation, [reported in (2011) 1 SCC 560].

4. In the said case by order dated 10.2.2011, this Court indicated that a separate Special Court should be established to try the case(s) relating to 2G Spectrum. The said part of the above order is quoted hereunder:

“We also indicated to the learned Attorney General that a separate Special Court should be established to try the case(s) relating to 2G Spectrum. The learned Attorney General responded to this by stating that he may be given two weeks’ time to consult the concerned authorities and make a statement on this issue.”

5. Pursuant to aforesaid observation, the Delhi High Court issued impugned Administrative order dated 15.3.2011 nominating one Mr. Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge to try cases of 2G Scam exclusively.

6. Another order was passed by this Court on 16.3.2011 inter alia directing;

“At the commencement of hearing, learned Attorney General placed before the Court letter dated 14.03.2011 sent to him by the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi conveying the decision taken by the High Court to nominate Shri O.P. Saini, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, who is presently posted as Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-2, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts as the Special Judge to undertake the trial of cases in relation to all matters pertaining to what has been described as 2G Scam exclusively.

Learned Attorney General gave out that he would ensure that two separate notifications are issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment of the Special Court to exclusively try the offences pertaining to what has been termed as 2G Scam and other related offences. Learned Attorney General submitted that appropriate notifications will be issued on or before 29.3.2011.”

7. Pursuant to the abo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 535

IMPORTANT POINT It is open to the Special Judge designated under the PC Act to take cognizance of the offence under Section 120-B and Section 420 IPC.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is open to the Special Judge designated under the PC Act to take cognizance of the offence under Section 120-B and Section 420 IPC.