Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 89

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J.
A. Revanth Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana through ACB, CIU - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.133 of 2021
Decided On : 01-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahmood Ali Learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Learned Special Counsel

Point of Law : jurisdictional issue has to be decided by the trial Court during trial, the accused has to take the said contention/defence during the trial in C.C and the trial Court is bound to consider the same. The petitioner instead of taking the said plea of defence during trial, filed the present application to decide the said jurisdictional fact as a preliminary issue.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 105 (2) and 194 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482, 397 and 401, Sections 177 to 184 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections3, 7, 11, 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B, 34 – Bribe – Corrupt Practice in Elections – Abstaining from voting – Jurisdiction – Biennial MLC Elections for Legislative Council were scheduled to be held – LW1 was also a nominated MLA – Accused No.4 approached LW1 and offered an amount of Rs.2.00 Crores either to vote in favour of Telugu Desham Party (TDP) Candidate or to boycott or to abstain from voting by leaving the Country at that relevant point of time. – Accused No.2 contacted LW1 with the said proposal and offered bribe of Rs.5.00 Crores for the said purpose. –Court below dismissed the discharge applications filed by the other accused wherein the same issue of jurisdictional fact was raised and it has dismissed the said applications by holding that it is having jurisdiction.–Court below is not having ample power to review its own order. – Though there are several triable issues and petitioner herein instead of facing trial, filed present application with a prayer to decide ‘jurisdictional fact’ as a preliminary issue.
Finding of the Court : Issue of jurisdiction of a Court to try an “offence” or “offender” as well as issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence – That if issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, same has to be decided with respect to various rules enunciated in Sections 177 to 184 of Cr.P.C – Jurisdictional issue has to be taken by the accused during trial in a calendar case itself – Trial Court has to decide the same with respect to various rules enunciated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code. – Trial Court is bound to consider same. – It is a reasoned order and there is no error in it – It is relevant to note that charge sheet was filed, it was taken on file vide C.C. – Discharge petitions filed by other accused were dismissed and said orders were confirmed by this Court in revisions filed by them – Petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with impugned order by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C..
Result : Criminal Revision Case Dismissed

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to set aside the order dated 29.01.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.804 of 2020 in C.C.No.15 of 2016 by the Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner herein is Accused No.1 in C.C.No.15 of 2016. The offences alleged against him are under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C. Act”), and under Section 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

3. The allegations against the petitioner, as per the contents of the charge sheet in C.C.No.15 of 2016, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a member of the Telangana Legislative Assembly. Biennial MLC Elections for Legislative Council were scheduled to be held on 1.6.2015. LW1 was also a nominated MLA. Accused No.4 approached LW1 and offered an amount of Rs.2.00 Crores either to vote in favour of Telugu Desham Party (TDP) Candidate or to boycott or to abstain from voting by leaving the Country at that relevant point of time. Accused No.2 contacted LW1 with the said proposal and offered bribe of Rs.5.00 Crores for the said purpose. The entire transaction would be dealt with by Accused No.1 personally.

(ii) The de facto complainant has addressed a letter to the DSP, A.C.B, City Range-1, Hyderabad, complaining the same who in turn, took approval from the Director General, ACB. Thereafter, on receipt of information, DSP, ACB, that on 30.05.2012, accused Nos.1 and 2 were going to the house of the complainant, for talks on the said deal, he has arranged an Apple Phone without a SIM in the sitting room of the house of the complainant for Video and Audio recording of the transactions as part of verification. The ACB Officials have seized the said amount of Rs.50.00 Lakhs paid by Accused No.1 to the de facto complainant for the said purpose from the house of the de facto complainant. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, they have laid charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused for the aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.15 of 2016.

(iii) The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 3(1) of the P.C. Act to determine the issue of existence/non-existence of ‘jurisdictional fact’ and to determine whether the Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, lacks jurisdiction to try C.C.No.15 of 2016 on the ground of non-existence of jurisdiction. The petitioner has filed the said petition vide Crl.M.P.No.804 of 2020 in C.C.No.15 of 2016 with the following contentions.

(a) Exercise of vote in an ex-officio capacity by a public servant and exercise of vote is an ex-officio right and not an exercise of a public function/duty as a Member of Legislative Assembly. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kuldip Nayyar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC (1) .

(b) Chapter IXA of IPC deals with electoral malpractices and the provisions of the P.C Act are wholly inapplicable as the specific field is covered by the Indian Penal Code on this issue, which results in finding that ACB of Telangana State does not have jurisdiction to register an FIR. Offering of a bribe simpliciter does not attract any offence for punishment under Section 12 of the P.C. Act.

(c) The Court below being a Special Court designated under Section 3 (1) of the P.C. Act for trying the offences under the provisions of the P.C. Act and the jurisdiction of the said Court is governed by Section 4 of the P.C. Act. In view of the same, the Court below while exercising jurisdiction over offences under the P.C Act is not generally empowered to deal with non-P.C. Act offences and its jurisdiction over non-P.C. Act offences is circumscribed by Section 4 (3) of the P.C. Act which requires existence of an offence under the P.C Act. In support of the same, learned counsel relied on the pri