V K PURI Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28/7/2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner's application for discharge on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which relates to the possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of a public servant. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed pertaining to the check period from 01.06.1988 to 22.02.2002 when the search was conducted. It is his submission that during this check period, the petitioner was not posted in Delhi. This fact is borne out from the charge-sheet itself. He referred to the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and pointed out that the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, is empowered to appoint Special Judges for areas or for particular cases or group of cases by notification in the official Gazette for the purpose of trying two kinds of offences. The first being offences punishable under the Act and the second being conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abetment of any of the offences punishable under the Act. The learned counsel then referred to the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act to indicate that it contains a non obstante clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in Section 3(1) shall be tried by "Special Judges only". He then referred to the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 4 which stipulates that every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed or, as the case may be, by the Special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. The learned counsel submitted that no Special Judge for this particular case has been appointed and therefore, the present case can only be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which the alleged offence was committed.

(3.) He then referred to Section 13(1)(e) of the said Act which reads as under: