The court established that jurisdiction to try offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act hinges on the public servant's service location during the relevant check period, not prior service.

ORDER :

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore in Cr.M.P.No.913 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2023 dated 12.03.2024, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

2.1 The petitioner herein has joined the service as a Divisional Fire Officer in the Fire Rescue Department at Vellore on 12.05.1995 and served there till 20.04.1999. Thereafter, he served in Coimbatore from April 1999 to January 2003 and at Kancheepuram from February 2003 to 18.09.2006. Then he was promoted as Deputy Director of Fire Rescue Services and was posted at Vellore from 19.09.2006 to 17.12.2009 and also holding full additional charge as Joint Director from January 2010 to 03.10.2013. On 03.10.2013, he was appointed as Joint Director of Fire Rescue Services Department on 03.10.2013 and was posted in North Chennai till September 2016 and was transferred to the Western Region at Coimbatore on 26.09.2016. While he was serving in the said office, an FIR in FIR N 02/2020/AC/CB came to be registered against him on 26.03.2020, alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(e) r/w. Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”].

2.2 The allegation leveled against the petitioner is that he had acquired assets to the tune of Rs.15,83,793/- which are disproportionate to his source of income. The respondent filed a final report before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for PC Act Cases, Coimbatore and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2023. In lieu of this, the petitioner has filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.913 of 2023 seeking to discharge him on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence as the petitioner neither hold office nor had acquired assets in Coimbatore during the check period but however, the trial Court has dismissed the petition stating that the petitioner had held office before the check period and that would confer jurisdiction on the Court to try the offence.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

4. Heard Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that during check period i.e., from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2010, the petitioner has allegedly accumulated pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.15,83,793/- which is disproportionate to the known sources of income and hence, committed the offences under Sections 13 (1) (e) r/w. 13 (2) of the PC Act. He further contended that after investigation, the respondent had filed a final report and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2023 and sanction was granted by the Additional Chief Secretary through G.O. Ms. 171, dated 17.04.2023 to prosecute against the petitioner. Pursuant to receipt of summons, the petitioner had preferred Crl.M.P. 913 of 2023 before the trial Court on the grounds of non-consideration of explanations and absence of concealed property. Further, the learned counsel contended that the lower court counsel had emphasized on the lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Special Court, Coimbatore as neither the petitioner worked in Coimbatore nor the assets gathered by him