https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465738 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. en-us Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 14:34:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465738 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465738