The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to direct registration of FIR and investigate the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. The present petition challenges the order dated 15th October, 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge disposing of the application of the Petitioner holding that the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to direct registration of FIR and investigate the offences to Director CBI.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner had laid ample evidence on record to show that the accused mentioned in the complaint committed offences under Sections 7, 8, 12 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act). The impugned order is illegal as no reasoning has been given by the learned Special Judge to come to the aforesaid conclusion. The order of the learned Special Judge is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak & Anr., AIR 1984 SC 718. Since the learned Special Judge exercises the original jurisdiction in the criminal cases, he has the jurisdiction akin to the one with the Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. This issue has been considered at length in Satyanand & Anr. v. Prakash Chand Jain & Anr., 2007 (1) MPLJ 291. Since the learned Special Judge exercises jurisdiction under Section 190 Cr.P.C., it has the jurisdiction to direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. On the facts of the case Petitioner has placed on record sufficient material to show that a prima facie case for proceeding for the abovementioned offences against the accused is made out, thus the learned Special Judge ought to have directed registration of FIR by the CBI. Further, it is the discretion of the Petitioner whether to go for registration of FIR or to proceed in as a complaint case. Thus, the impugned order be set aside and directions be given to the Respondent to register FIR against the accused persons.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI on the other hands contends that on 9th January, 2009 the alleged meeting took place. On 29th January, 2009 a complaint was received from Mr. Swaminathan that the Petitioner was demanding bribe of Rs. 10 lakh. After verification and recording of the conversation, the Petitioner was caught red-handed in a trap case while accepting Rs. 1 lakh. As per the conversation recorded, the balance amount of Rs. 9 lakh was to be paid at Dubai. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in order to take revenge from the complainant, filed a complaint before the learned Special Judge on 11th August, 2010 and before the CBI on 15th February, 2011 and 18th April, 2011. The charge-sheet against the Petitioner was filed on 26th June, 2010. During investigation, as it was revealed that the other persons had received hospitality from V. Swaminathan the complainant in the case against the Petitioner, an inquiry was conducted and a report was sent to the office of Director General of Foreign Trade for suitable action against the officers. However, the competent authority of those officials did not deem it fit to take any action on the report. Hence, no case for registration of FIR is made out. Relying on CBI v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 SCC (Cr.) 524 it is stated that no Trial Court can direct registration of FIR to the CBI in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Even the High Court can direct registration of FIR by the CBI only sparingly in cases involving national and international ramifications.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. The Petitioner was working as Director S&T, RAW, Cabinet Secretariat. One M/s. Titanium Tantalum Products Ltd., Chennai had applied for export license for SCOMET items to Qatar for FOB value of Euro 268528 vide their application dated 23rd August, 2008. Their export license was approved by the Inter-Ministerial Working Group (IMWG) in their meeting held on 9th January, 2009 at Chennai and only NOC from Cabinet Secretariat was pending. The concerned file was sent to Dr. Rao, the Petitioner herein for his o