MIR ARIF ALI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a public servant. The respondent registered an FIR against the petitioner, purported to be for the commission of offence punishable under S. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) i.e., acquiring of assets disproportionate to the petitioner's known source of income for the check period. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the respondent. Cognizance of the offence having been taken, learned District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Act, at Kolar, registered PCA CC No.11/2009 and issued process. An application filed by the petitioner, under S.239 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge was dismissed on 03.12.2014. The case is at the stage of trial. This petition was filed under S.407 of Cr.P.C., 1973, for transfer of the said case to the Court of District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Act, at Bengaluru, mainly on the ground that the properties alleged to have been accumulated by the petitioner are situated within the limits of Bengaluru and none of the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Act, at Kolar.

(2.) Sri. I. S. Pramod Chandra, learned advocate, would contend that the ingredients of offence involving S.13(1)(e) of the Act, vis-a-vis other provisions thereof, read with Ss.177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would clearly go to show that the situs of the properties which are said to have been acquired out of the income of the petitioner, would not confer jurisdiction upon the Court and relevant factor would be as to where the public servant concerned committed the acts of alleged misconduct or allegedly abused his official position. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had worked as Inspector of Police, Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru City during the year 2006 and it was alleged that the petitioner has accumulated wealth to the tune of Rs. 84 lakhs disproportionate to his income and the FIR was registered. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner having served in and around the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City i.e., during most part of his service, all the properties which are alleged to have been accumulated by the petitioner, being within the limits of Bengaluru and as none of the properties being situated in the jurisdiction of District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Act, at Kolar and as all the witnesses have to travel from Bengaluru to Kolar and that the petitioner also being the resident of Bengaluru, he will have to travel to Kolar every time when the matter comes up for trial, this is a fit case to exercise power under S.407 of Cr.P.C., for transfer of the case.

(3.) Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that by reason of sub-section (3) of S.5 of the Act, the provisions of the Code have been made applicable in relation to the proceedings initiated under the Act and in a case where an offence was committed at more than one place, any of the Courts will have jurisdiction to try the offence. He referred to the provisions under Ss.177 and 178 of the Code and also Ss.3, 4, 5 and 13 of the Act.