The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the court is determined based on the place where the main offence was committed, as per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :- This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-8-2006, passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central). Lucknow, in Criminal Case No. 14 of 2006, R.C. No. 2 (A)/2005, whereby the release of pass-ports of opposite parties was ordered.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision are that a case under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act, in short) was registered against Sri Akhand Pratap Singh, IAS (Retd.) at C.B.I. Anti-Corruption Unit-V, New Delhi. Search warrants were obtained from the court of Special Judge, C.B.I, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, pass-ports of opposite parties, who are the married daughters of Sri Akhand Pratap Singh and their four Companies running in the names of M/s Angel Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vinlab Exports Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Terra Pharma Growers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Trident Agri. Pvt. Ltd. were seized on the suspicion of laundering ill-gotten money of Sri Akhand Pratap Singh.

3. The opposite parties moved an application before the Special Judge. Anti-Corruption (Central), Lucknow for release of their pass-ports, which were seized on 21-3-2005.

4. The revisionist opposed the application mainly on the ground that the court at Lucknow has no jurisdiction in the matter and the same is vested in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I., New Delhi.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), Lucknow held that the jurisdiction of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), Lucknow is not ousted in the matter, she, therefore, passed the impugned order releasing the pass-ports of opposite parties subject to an undertaking given by the opposite parties.

6. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Unit-V, New Delhi has preferred this revision.

7. I have heard Sri Bireshwar Nath for the revisionist and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate assisted by Sri K.S. Pawar, Advocate for the opposite parties and have carefully perused the record.

8. Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the question of jurisdiction was also raised in Writ Petition No. 2067 (MB) of 2005, Akhand Pratap Singh v. C.B.I, and others, before a Division Bench of this Court. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the C.B.I. and the courts at Delhi will not have any jurisdiction to investigate or to try the offences, but this plea of the petitioner was not upheld by the Division Bench. Supplementing this argument, Sri Bireshwar Nath has submitted that M/s Angel Food Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, who are opposite parties 1 and 2 in this revision, had challenged the order dated 21-3-2005 passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., New Delhi, by means of Writ Petition No. 4760 (MB) of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court in the said petition had advised the petitioners to approach the appropriate court under the common law for redressal of their grievances i.e. either for quashing of the impugned order, or for release of the property. The submission of Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the revisionist is that this order of Honble Division Bench is indicative of the fact that the court at Lucknow has no jurisdiction in the matter. This Division Benchs decision in Writ Petition No. 4760 (MB) of 2005 was followed in judgment and order dated 7-7-2006 rendered in Writ Petition No. 3164 (MS) of 2006, M/s. Angel Foods Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and others. On the basis of aforesaid three judgments of this Court, Sri Bireshwar Nath has argued that the jurisdiction of the designated court at Lucknow is ousted and it was the Delhi court only, which has the jurisdiction in the matter.

9. This revision has been filed mainly on the ground that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court, which has passed the impugned order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document