2007 (4) TMI 789 - SC - Indian Laws

Disproportionate assets case under s13(1)(e): venue can lie where income sources and assets located; transfer denied

For a prosecution under s 13(1)(e) r/w s 13(2) PC Act, SC held that territorial jurisdiction is not confined to the places where the public servant was ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether a Special Judge at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the accused was not posted in Delhi during the check period but had bank accounts/immovable property and a known source of income (rent) in Delhi. (ii) Whether, in deciding territorial jurisdiction for a Section 13(1)(e) prosecution, the Court should confine jurisdiction to places of posting/office (as the situs of 'acts of misconduct'), or whether jurisdiction may arise where part of the offence is committed, including where 'known sources of income' and possession of disproportionate assets are located, by applying Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through Section 5(3) of the Act. (iii) Whether transfer of the case should be ordered on the basis of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction and inconvenience at an advanced stage where charges had already been framed. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i) & (ii): Territorial jurisdiction of the Special Judge for an offence under Section 13(1)(e) Legal framework: The Court examined that the Act is a special law overriding general criminal procedure, but where the Act does not cover a matter, Section 5(3) applies the Code of Criminal Procedure insofar as not inconsistent. The Court considered Sections 177 and 178 CrPC (ordinary place of trial and trial where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or consists of several acts in different local areas) together with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 13(1)(e) of the Act to determine the competent Special Judge. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court drew a distinction between prosecutions under Sections 13(1)(c)/(d) and those under Section 13(1)(e). For Section 13(1)(e), the Court identified the essential ingredients as: (1) the accused is a public servant; (2) the nature and extent of pecuniary resources/property found in possession; (3) known sources of income (known to the prosecution); and (4) disproportion between the two. The Court held that what is material is that the criminal misconduct (possession of disproportionate assets) relates to the period of office and requires an assessment of known sources of income vis-à-vis assets found in possession; it is not dependent on proving a discrete 'place of completion' of misconduct akin to bribery, conspiracy, abetment, or a chain of acts culminating in an offence. Because the prosecution must ascertain known sources of income and possession of disproportionate assets, the Court treated the offence as involving components that can occur in more than one local area, so that Section 178 CrPC is not barred by the Act for determining which Special Judge has territorial jurisdiction. The Court specifically relied on the chargesheet averments that one of the accused's known sources of income was rent received from a Delhi flat and that he had bank accounts and immovable property within Delhi jurisdiction. Since part of the 'known source of income' arose in Delhi and since the ascertainment of disproportionate assets necessarily involves examining such sources and the assets/resources, the Court held that a part of the offence could be said to have been committed within Delhi for jurisdictional purposes. The Court therefore applied a purposive construction consistent with the object of the Act and concluded that the Delhi Special Judge had jurisdiction. The Court rejected the contention that jurisdiction must be confined only to the places where the accused held office during the check period, and clarified that while only Special Courts try such offences, selection of the territorially competent Special Judge may legitimately consider the relevance of the situs of property/income when it bears upon 'known sources of income' and disproportionate assets. Conclusion: Delhi Courts had territorial jurisdiction to try the Section 13(1)(e) offence because part of the offence-through a known source of income and related assets/resources-was connected to Delhi, and Section 178 CrPC could be applied via Section 5(3) of the Act. The appeal challenging jurisdiction was dismissed. Issue (iii): Transfer request at an advanced stage Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that the principal ground urged for transfer-absence of territorial jurisdiction-failed on merits. It further noted that the matter had been pending for a long time before the Delhi Court and that charges had already been framed. Although it was suggested that several prosecution witnesses may be from outside Delhi and another accused resided elsewhere, the Court treated the age of the case and the stage of proceedings as decisive considerations against transfer. Conclusion: Transfer was refused and the transfer petition dismissed because the Delhi court had jurisdiction and, in any event, the case was too advanced (charges framed) and too old to justify transfer at that stage.