Sinha, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. What would be the territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court within the meaning of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the 1988 Act") is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 1.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 556 of 2006.

3. Appellant was an officer working in the Customs Department. Central Bureau of Investigation registered a first information report against him purported to be for commission of an offence under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (e) of the 1988 Act, viz., acquiring of assets disproportionate to the appellant's known sources of income for the check period of 1.6.1988 to 22.2.2002. Contention of the appellant is that, as he had never been posted in Delhi during the aforementioned period, the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to his case. The learned Special Judge as also the High Court has rejected the said contention of the appellant.

4. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the ingredients of an offence involving section 13 (1) (e) of the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the other provisions thereof read with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, viz., sections 177 and 178 thereof, would clearly go to show that the situs of the properties which are said to have been acquired out of the income of the employee would not confer jurisdiction upon the Court.

5. It was submitted that the only fact relevant therefore would be as to where the public servant concerned committed acts of misconduct or abused his official position, which would be the places where he had held his offices. It was urged that the principal place of commission of offence will have to be judged having regard to the area where the offence has been said to have been completed. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on M. Krishna Reddy v. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad [(1992) 4 SCC 45] and CBI, ADH, Patna v. Braj Bhushan Prasad and others [(2001) 9 SCC 432].

6. Drawing our attention to a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered by M.M. Punchhi, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in Kamal Dev v. State of Haryana [1986 (3) Crimes 305] it was submitted that the term "possession" would refer to the source and not the situs of the property.

7. Mr. A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that as by reason of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the 1988 Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been made applicable in relation to the proceedings initiated against the 1988 Act, in a case where the offence was committed at more than one place, any of the Courts concerned will have jurisdiction to try the offence. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on P. Nallammal and another v. State Represented by Inspector of Police [(1999) 6 SCC 559].

8. Before embarking on the questions involved herein, we may notice the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the 1988 Act.

9. Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under :

"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial --

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial --

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; or

(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

10. The relevant provisions of the 1988 Act read as under :

"3. Power to appoint special Judges --

(