The Special Court loses jurisdiction to try a case if the sole public servant-accused dies before the trial commences, as established in the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

Accused Nos.13 and 14 in C.C. No.20 of 2014 pending before the Additional Special Sessions Court, (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam filed respectively Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.107 of 2023 and 102 of 2023. They together filed Crl.M.P.No.85 of 2018 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Special Court dismissed that petition as per the order dated 21.11.2022 which is under challenge in these revision petitions filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.

2. The final report was laid with the following allegations:

The first accused was the manager of the Cochin branch of the State Bank of India (P & B Division). Accused No. 2 to 4 were respectively the Managing Partner and Partners of M/s New Appliances, Cochin. Accused No. 5 was the Managing Director of M/s X-Com Technologies (P) Ltd, Cochin. Accused No. 6 was the proprietor of M/s Aadil Traders, Binanipuram. Accused No. 7 was the Director of M/s Vaidian Healthcare (P) Ltd, Cochin. Accused No. 8 was the Proprietor of M/s Sithara Communications, Cochin. Accused No. 9 was the Proprietor of M/s Tan-C Engineers and Contractors, Cochin. Accused No. 10 was the Director of Penta Tech Industrial Marketing Ltd, Cochin. Accused No. 11 was the Proprietor of Swamy Ramananda Memorial Sidha Vaidyashramom, Cochin. Accused No. 12 was the Proprietor of Aarza Traders, Binanipuram. Accused No. 13 was the Director of ALS Combines, Cochin. And, Accused No. 14 was the Managing Director of ALS Combines (P) Ltd, Cochin.

During the period 1999-2001 the accused hatched a conspiracy intending to cheat SBI and in furtherance of which, accused No. 1 sanctioned and disbursed consumer durable loans under 'Big Buy' scheme to non-existing and existing persons proposed by Accused Nos. 5 to 14 falsely claiming to be their employees. They, for that purpose, fabricated documents purporting to be salary certificates, invoices etc. Without verifying the identity of the loanees and ensuring purchase and actual delivery of the consumer goods, loans were disbursed. Thus the accused persons cheated the bank and caused wrongful loss of ?72,28,000/- to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset raised a contention that the Special Court ceased to have jurisdiction since the 1st accused, who is the only public servant, expired before the commencement of the trial. In the view of the learned counsel, having the 1st accused expired before commencement of the trial, by operation of the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Special Court ought not to have proceeded with the matter after reporting the death of the 1st accused. The 1st accused expired on 15.02.2020 and a copy of the death certificate was produced before the Special Court on 09.07.2020. In order to fortify the said contention, the learned counsel places reliance on State through CBI, New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh [2014 (11) SCC 724]. The learned counsel also raised contentions pertaining to the merits of the case and submitted that the Special Court went wrong in dismissing Crl.M.P. No. 85 of 2018.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI would submit that the impugned order was passed by the Special Court much after the death of the 1st accused and the petitioners having pursued the application for discharge even thereafter, they cannot be heard to contend that the Special Court lost jurisdiction. That apart, a contention which was available, but not raised before the Special Court cannot now be raised anew. The further submission is that there are sufficient materials to establish the guilt of petitioners as well their co-accused and hence the impugned order requires no interference.

6. In regard to the question, when the trial commences for the purpose of deciding the question of jurisdiction of the Special Court