The possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income is an integral part of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the jurisdiction of the Special Judge is determined based on the place of commission of the offence.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28. 7. 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala House, New delhi, whereby the petitioner's application for discharge on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed invoking the provisions of Section 13 (l) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 which relates to the possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of a public servant. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed pertaining to the check period from 1. 6. 1988 to 22. 2. 2002 when the search was conducted. It is his submission that during this check period, the petitioner was not posted in Delh. This fact is borne out from the charge-sheet itself. He referred to the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and pointed out that the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, is empowered to appoint Special Judges for areas or for particular cases or group of cases by notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of trying two kinds of offences. The first being offences punishable under the Act and the second being conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abetment of any of the offences punishable under the Act. The learned Counsel then referred to the provisions of Section 4 of the said act to indicate that it contains a non obstante clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in Section 3 (1) shall be tried by 'special Judges only'. He then referred to the provisions of Sub-section 2 of section 4 which stipulates that every offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed or, as the case may be, by the Special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. The learned Counsel submitted that no special Judge for this particular case has been appointed and, therefore, the present case can only be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which the alleged offence was committed.

( 3 ) HE then referred to Section 13 (1) (e) of the said Act which reads as under: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanationfor the purposes of this section, 'known sources of income' means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. "

( 4 ) REFERRING to the aforesaid provisions of Section 13 (l) (e), the learned counsel submitted that the possession of resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income of the public servant is relatable to his office. He submitted that the check period in the present case starts from 1. 6. 1988 and ends at 22. 2. 2002. Therefore, according to him, the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) is relatable to this period, and during this period, the petitioner was in office in places other than Delh. He pointed out that from the charge-sheet itself it can be ascertained that from June, 1988 to June, 1992 the petitioner was posted at Indore, from July, 1992 to May, 2001 the petitioner was posted in different capacities at mumbai and from May 2001 to June 2002 the pe