Territorial jurisdiction in disproportionate assets cases may extend to places linked to income sources, and transfer was refused after charge framing.

For offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act involving possession of disproportionate assets, territorial jurisdiction is not confined to the place where the public servant held office; it may extend to a place where part of the known sources of income or other relevant elements of the check-period inquiry arise, applying Sections 177 and 178 CrPC unless inconsistent with the special statute. On that basis, the Delhi Special Judge had jurisdiction and the jurisdictional objection failed. The transfer petition was also declined because charges had already been framed and the circumstances, including the age of the proceedings, did not justify shifting the trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Special Judge at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of possession of disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Whether the transfer petition should be entertained at the stage when charges had already been framed.

Issue (i): Whether a Special Judge at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of possession of disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Analysis: The offence under Section 13(1)(e) is not confined to the place where the public servant held office. Its ingredients include the existence of pecuniary resources or property in possession and their disproportion to known sources of income. For determining jurisdiction, the Court applied the scheme of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, together with Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which makes the criminal procedure provisions applicable so far as they are not inconsistent with the special Act. Since part of the known source of income was alleged to be connected with Delhi and the offence was a continuing one relating to the check period, the situs of property and income sources was relevant to jurisdiction. The Court also held that the question was different from cases of bribery, conspiracy, or abetment, where completion of the offence at a particular place may be material.

Conclusion: Yes. The Delhi Special Judge had jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer petition should be entertained at the stage when charges had already been framed

Analysis: The transfer request was considered in light of the stage of proceedings, the framing of charges, the pendency of the case for a long time, and the fact that the alleged offence related to a past period. These circumstances did not justify shifting the matter away from the court already seized of it.

Conclusion: No. The transfer petition was not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to territorial jurisdiction failed, and the request for transfer was also declined, leaving the proceedings to continue before the existing Special Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, territorial jurisdiction may lie where part of the known sources of income or related elements of the disproportionate assets inquiry arise, and Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply unless inconsistent with the special statute.

---