U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks following relief, among others:

“Allow the present application and quash the FIR bearing No.RC0072011A0006 dated 12.05.2011, P.S. CBI, SPE, Dehradun, under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)( d) P.C. Act and further suspension and police/judicial custody period be treated as duty and all pay and allowance, increments within interest, etc. be restored back to applicant with cost.”

2. It may be mentioned, at the very outset, that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant after substantial prosecution evidence has been recorded by the trial court. Needless to say that the charge was already framed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘P.C. Act’) to which, he (applicant herein) pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly submitted, at the very outset, that the arguments, which he is going to advance, today before this Court, were not argued by the applicant at the time of framing of charge. The main plank of applicant’s, argument is that the special law will prevail over the general law. Learned counsel for the applicant cited, decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda vs, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 3 SCC 674; Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs & others vs. Chandrika & others, AIR 2016 SC 1213 and P. Rajan Sandhi vs. Union of ‘India & another, 2010 (10) SCALE 163 in this regard.

4. Reliance is placed upon the provision of Section 25 of the. P.C. Act, which reads as under:

“25. Military, Naval and Air Force or other law not to be affected- (1) Noting in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction exercisable by, or the procedure applicable to, any court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), the Air Force Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (47 of 1968), the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (30 of 1978), and the National Security Guard Act, 1986 (47 of 1986).

(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of any such law as is referred to in sub-section (1), the court of a Special Judge shall be deemed to be a court of ordinary criminal justice.”

5. This Court agrees to such submission of learned counsel for the applicant that Section 25 of the P.C. Act, which provides that Military, Naval and Air Force or other law shall not to be affected by the provisions of this Act. The result would be - had any proceedings under the Army Act, Air Force Act, Navy Act, the Border Security Force Act, Coast Guard Act, National Security Guard Act, etc. been on the anvil, the provisions of the P.C. Act would not have affected them.

6. In respect of offences alleged against the applicant, the Army Act, Air force Act, Navy Act, the Border Security Force Act, the Coast Guard Act, etc. nowhere uses such type of language as ”notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Army Act, Air Force Act, .......... etc. shall prevail” or shall have overriding effect”.

7. Although, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITBP Act’) does not find mention in Section 25 of the P.C. Act, yet learned counsel for the applicant made an endeavour to bring home the point that the applicant should only be tried under the ITBP Act. To start with Section 5 of the ITBP Act, nobody is disputing that the general superintendence, direction and control of the force shall vest inthe Central Government, The same has nothing to do with the trial of the applicant-accused by the Special Judge under the P.C. Act.

8. Now, Rule 41 of the Indo Tibetan Border Police