The judgment establishes the principle that the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prevails over the general rule on jurisdiction in Cr.P.C., and the location of acts and consequences determines the court's jurisdiction.

R.K. Gauba, J.

The first petitioner i.e. M/s Lichen Metals Private Limited (LMPL) is described as a group of companies of M/s Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd., which had been a business associate, since 2008, of State Trading Corporation (STC), an entity controlled by the Government of India. The second petitioner has been concededly connected to M/s Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd and also authorized by LMPL to sign documents on its behalf.

2. Upon consideration of the evidence oral and documentary as submitted with the report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on conclusion of investigation into its First Information Report (FIR) vide RC No.221/2013/E0002/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi, the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) having registered a criminal case (CC No.04/2014) and having taken cognizance, issuing process, after securing their presence by order dated 17.12.2015, found charge made out so as to put the petitioners herein (A-4 and A-5 respectively), along with three others, on trial. The three other persons against whom charge was framed by the said order included P.E. Lyngdoh (A-1), D.S. Parmar (A-2) and S.K.Negi (A-3). All of the said persons were at the relevant point of time officers of STC, A-1 being the General Manager (Branch Head), A-2 being the Deputy General Manager (Marketing) and A-3 being the Deputy General Manager (Finance), each stationed at Kolkata. Charge has been found made out against all five accused persons, including the petitioners herein, for the offence under Sections 120B read with Sections 420/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Separate charges have been framed against the other three accused (A-1 to A-3) for offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC, and additionally under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The petitioners herein have brought this petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction and inherent powers of this Court under Sections 397, 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, to assail the above said decision of the Special Judge, the only contention pressed at the hearing being that all the acts of commission and omission alleged by CBI in the above mentioned case relate to Kolkata (West Bengal) and, therefore, the Court of Special Judge at New Delhi did not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain it, prayer being for the proceedings in the criminal case to be quashed on this account, reliance being placed on the rulings in Y.Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr, (2004) 8 SCC 100 and Ramesh and others Vs. State of T.N, (2005) 3 SCC 507. Noticeably, the said cases cited at bar relate to prosecution for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Be that as it may, it is trite law that the jurisdictional error goes to the root of the matter and if there is nothing connected to the offence for which the criminal prosecution has been launched against the petitioner at New Delhi, the proceedings would be vitiated.

4. The case for the prosecution has been summarized succinctly by the Special Judge in the impugned order, relevant portion whereof reads thus:

"3. STC is one of the canalizing agency of Government of India for import and export of certain commodities including bullion. The bullion is imported by STC from its empanelled foreign suppliers for its empanelled Indian associates which import it for the purpose of export, after some value additions like jewellery etc. After receipt of bullion consignment from foreign suppliers, payments are made in US dollars by STC after collecting equivalent Indian currency from Indian associates. The liability of India associate towards imports of bullion may increase or decrease as per value of US dollar in terms of Indi