Territorial jurisdiction in corruption cases turns on where misappropriation occurred, not where the FIR was filed.

Territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail in a corruption-linked misappropriation case depends on where the alleged offence was completed, not on the place of FIR registration or later investigative steps. For offences involving misappropriation or criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, jurisdiction lies with the Special Judge in the area where public funds were entrusted and wrongfully diverted. On the stated facts, the fund allocation, diversion, and embezzlement occurred in Uttar Pradesh, so the competent forum was the Special Judge at Ghaziabad. The Delhi Special Judge was therefore treated as lacking territorial jurisdiction, and the rejection of anticipatory bail on that basis was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Judge at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the anticipatory bail application arising from alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis: The determining factor was the place where the alleged misappropriation and criminal misconduct occurred. The offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was held to be complete where the public funds were entrusted and then misappropriated, not merely where the FIR was registered or where some investigation steps took place. On the facts, the fund allocation, alleged diversion, and embezzlement were found to have occurred in Uttar Pradesh, bringing the matter within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge at Ghaziabad under the territorial rule in Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Conclusion: The Delhi Special Judge lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the rejection of anticipatory bail on that ground was upheld against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the competent forum for the alleged offence was the Special Judge having jurisdiction over the place where the offence was committed, which was in Uttar Pradesh.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act involving misappropriation or criminal misconduct, territorial jurisdiction lies with the Special Judge within whose area the offence was committed, as determined by the place where the wrongful diversion of public funds occurred.

---