Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
State through CBI New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Jitender Kumar Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008 With Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011
Decided On : 05-02-2014
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 3(1) and 4(1) and (2) – Offences specified in section 3(1) committed by public servant or non-public servant – Jurisdiction to try – Exclusively vested in Special Judge to try the offenders alone or jointly. (Para 31)
(c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 4(3) – Any person, public servant or non-public servant – Charged for an offence under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and an offence under IPC –Special Judge is competent to try. (Para 34)
(1993) 3 SCC 609; (2009) 7 SCC 198; (2011) 13 SCC 621; (2003) 8 SCC 628 – Relied upon
(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 3(1) and 4(3) – Public servant not charged while alive – Non-public servant not charged for offences under section 3(1) – Special Judge can try any non-PC case only when he is trying an offence under the Act – Special Judge not obliged to try non-PC offences – Although jurisdiction of Special Judge is not divested, he cannot exercise the same in non-PC offences alone – Exercise of jurisdiction to try non-PC offence depends upon the jurisdictional fact of trying a PC offence. (Para 35 to 38)
(e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 4(3) – Jurisdictional fact and exercise of jurisdiction – Jurisdictional fact is condition precedent for exercise of the jurisdiction – Existence of an offence under section 3(1) – Is jurisdictional fact and condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction of trying non-PC offences by Special Judge. (Para 39)
(2007) 8 SCC 559; (2008) 14 SCC 58; (1979) 2 SCC 179 – Relied upon
(f) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 4(3) – Public servant and non-public servant both charged with offences under section 3(1) – Public servant dying during trial – Special Judge not divested of jurisdiction to continue with trial of non-public servant. (Para 42, 43)
(g) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 4(3) – FIR filed against Sole public servant and non-public servants under sections 120B, 420, IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the PC Act – Sole public servant dying before charges could be framed – Special Judge divested of jurisdiction to try non-PC offences – Forwarding matter to Competent Court for trying offences under IPC – No infirmity. (Para 45, 46)
Facts of the case:
The questions arising in these cases are:
1. Whether the Special Judge, after framing charges against a Public Servant under 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) falling under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and against private persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can go ahead with the trial of the case against the private persons for non-PC offences, even after the death of the sole public servant. Further, is the Special Judge duty bound to try any non-PC offence, other than the offences specified under Section 3 of the PC Act against the accused persons charged at the same trial.
2. Whether the Special Judge has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to try non-PC offences against private persons when no charges have been framed against public servants for trying a case for offences under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, since they died before framing of charges under the PC Act or IPC.
Finding of the Court:
Special Judge is not divested of his jurisdiction on death of public servant during trial.
JUDGMENT :
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We are, in these cases, concerned with the interpretation of various sections that appear in Chapter II read with Chapter III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”), especially Sections 3, 4, 5 and other related provisions dealing with offences and penalties appearing in Chapter III of the PC Act.
2. We are, in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008, concerned with the question whether the Special Judge, after framing charges against a Public Servant under 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) falling under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and against private persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can go ahead with the trial of the case against the private persons for non-PC offences, even after the death of the sole public servant. In other words, the question is whether, on the death of the sole public servant, the Special Judge will cease to have jurisdiction to continue with the trial against the private persons for non-PC offences. Further question raised is that, assuming that the Special Judge has jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act to proceed against the private persons, is the Special Judge duty bound to try any non-PC offence, other than the offences specified under Section 3 of the PC Act against the accused persons charged at the same trial.
3. In Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011, we are concerned with the question as to whether the Special Judge has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to try non-PC offences against private persons when no charges have been framed against public servants for trying a case for offences under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, since they died before framing of charges under the PC Act or IPC.
4. We have two conflicting judgments, one rendered by the Delhi High Court, which is impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008 filed by the State through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi and the other rendered by the Bombay High Court, which is challenged by a private person in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011.
5. Delhi High Court seems to have taken the view that when public servants and non-public servants are arrayed as co-accused and some offences are under the PC Act coupled with other offences under IPC, on death of a public servant, the offences under the PC Act cannot be proceeded with and the trial Court has to modify and/or alter and/or amend the charges. Bombay High Court has taken the view that once the jurisdiction is vested on a Special Judge, the same cannot be divested on the death of a public servant and that if a private person has abetted any offences punishable under the PC Act, he can be tried even without the public servant, in view of the separate charge levelled against such private person by the Special Judge.
6. We may first deal with the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008. The CBI, New Delhi registered a case No. RCSIG 2000/E0001 on 16.5.2000 against one P. K. Samal (A-1), Chief Manager SBI, Jaipur Road, J. K. Singh (A-2), Director M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MISL), New Delhi, Rita Singh (A-3), Director M/s MISL, Deepak Singh (A-4) and Proprietor Kesoram Refractory, New Delhi, under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and substantive offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act alleging that A-1, during 1996-97, was a party to a criminal conspiracy with A-2, A-3, A-4 and others with the object of cheating IDBI, Mumbai and in pursuance thereof, A-1 abused his official position to cause undue pecuniary advantage to the accused persons A-2 and A-3 and corresponding loss to IDBI, to the tune of Rs.3,52,63,550/-by negotiating forged /fictitious invoices purportedly of M/s. Kesoram Refractories, a B.K. Birla Group Company, Calcutta, against L.Cs opened by SBI, Jaipur Road.
7. CBI, after completing the i
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
