Point of Law: S. 4(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act clearly speaks 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 maybe specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 9.2.2011 passed by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 4-5/7 of 98, titled Stte v. Shiv Lal and others, whereby challan having been filed by petitioner-State against respondents-accused under S.120B, 109, 409, 420, 467, 409, 471A, 467, 201 read with S.120B and 109 IPC and S. 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, came to be returned on account of territorial jurisdiction, petitioner State has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Ss.397 and 401 IPC, praying therein to set aside impugned order dated 9.2.2011

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Azadpur New Sabji Mandi, Delhi sanctioned loans, overdrafts and CC Limits to various persons and firms. Since certain irregularities were found to have been committed by bank officials, while disbursing loans, overdrafts and CC Limits, to various firms, Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited Shimla, lodged an FIR at Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla. Police after having conducted investigation, presented Challan in the court of learned Special Judge (Forests) Shimla against the respondents-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) under the aforesaid provisions. During the pendency of the trial before learned court below at Shimla, one of the accused namely Parmil filed an application praying therein to return the Challan for presenting in the competent court of law at Delhi. Learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla vide order dated 9.2.2011 allowed the aforesaid application and returned the Challan to the petitioner-State for being presented to the competent court of law, in accordance with law. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and direct learned Special Judge (Forests) to proceed with the case.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this court finds that there is no dispute inter se parties that the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited opened its branch at New Sabji Mandi, Azadpur, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the said branch sanctioned loans/ overdrafts/ CC Limits to various firms and persons, which were found to have been sanctioned in violation of the rules. After having found certain illegalities and irregularities allegedly committed by the bank officials, Head Office of the Bank at Shimla lodged FIR No. 53 of 1994 against the accused named in the FIR, who are respondents herein, alleging therein that they, in connivance with bank officials, obtained loans, CC Limits and facility of overdraft on the basis of forged documents. Police, after completion of investigation presented challan in the court of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which vide order dated 9.2.2011, returned the Challan to the State for being presented to the competent court of law at Delhi.

4. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that since the head office of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited is situate at Shimla and necessary permission with regard to sanctioning of loans, overdrafts and CC Limits was given by the officers sitting in Head Office at Shimla, FIR in question rightly came to be lodged at Shimla. He further argued that since there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that loan amount and CC limits sanctioned from Branch at Delhi were issued with prior approval of authorities sitting at Shimla and as such, court at Shimla has jurisdiction to try the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondents. He further argued that weekly and monthly statements of transactions of Azadpur Branch used to be sent to the head office of the Bank at Shimla. He submit