TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court are as follows. 4. CBI registered an FIR RC No. DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009 alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and criminal conspiracy in respect of the grant of 122 UAS licenses in the year 2008 against various unknown Government officials, persons and companies. The gist of the offence was set out in the penultimate paragraph of the said FIR, which is set out as follows: Thus, the concerned officials of Department of Telecommunications in criminal conspiracy with private persons/companies by abusing their official position granted Unified Access Service Licenses to a few selected companies at nominal rate by rejecting the applications of others without any valid reason thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government of India and a corresponding wrongful loss to private persons/companies estimated to be more than Rs. 22,000 Crores. The aforesaid facts disclose commission of offence Under Sections 120-B Indian Penal Code, r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against certain unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, unknown private persons/companies and others. 5. On 16.12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 2G Scam. Three writ petitions were filed as has been stated above, challenging inter alia the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge, CBI taking cognizance of the matters stated in the second supplementary chargesheet against the Petitioners before us. The prayers contained in these writ petitions are set out hereunder: a) a Writ of Certiorari or an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Administrative Order dated 15.03.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 1 in so far as it seeks to confer upon the Ld. Special Judge Shri O.P. Saini jurisdiction to inquire into and try all cases arising out of 2G Spectrum scam, which are otherwise exclusively inquired into and triable by a Magistrate under the relevant statutes and to quash all consequential actions/orders passed thereupon; b) a Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification bearing No. 6/05/2011-Judl. dated 28.03.2011 in so far as it seeks to confer upon the Ld. Special Judge Shri O.P. Saini jurisdiction to inquire into and try all cases arising out of the 2G Spectrum scam, including those which are not within the scope of h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372], wherein it was acknowledged that the right to appeal is a valuable right and the loss of such a right is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [at para 14] 11. After setting out Sections 194, 26, 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Code of Criminal Procedure") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court stated: From the aforesaid second charge-sheet it is clear that the offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioners in the course of 2G Scam cases. For the said reason they have been made accused in the 2G Scam case. Admittedly, the co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by the Special Judge. The Petitioners are co-accused in the said 2G Scam case. In this background Section 220 Code of Criminal Procedure will apply and the Petitioners though accused of different offences i.e. Under Sections 420/120-B Indian Penal Code, which alleged to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, Under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i to the District Judge-I-cum-Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the District Judge-IV-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, I/C, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby the High Court intimated the officers about nomination of Mr. O.P. Saini, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service for his appointment as Special Judge for 2G Scam cases. [at para 30] 13. In the last paragraph, namely, paragraph 35, this Court dismissed the writ petitions in the following terms: We find no merit in these writ petitions, they are accordingly dismissed. The Special Court is expected to proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis to ensure early disposal of the trial. There shall be no order as to costs. [at para 35] 14. Close upon the heels of the judgment of this Court, Essar Teleholdings Ltd., one of the Petitioners before us, by an application dated 29.7.2013, sought for a joint trial, by praying as follows: a) Pass an order to give effect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 57 of 2012, treating the Accused in CC No. 1B of 2011 as 'Co-accused' with the Accused in CC No. 1 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to learned Counsel, it is clear that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Special Judge can only try offences that arise under the said Act and not offences that arise under the Penal Code. It is only Section 4(3) of the said Act that permits, in the circumstances mentioned therein, the trial of Penal Code offences which are that when trying any case, the Special Judge may also try an offence other than the offence specified in Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provided that this can only be at the same trial. He stressed the words "same trial" and said that it is clear that short of a Penal Code offence being linked to a Prevention of Corruption Act offence and provided they are tried together, no offence under the Penal Code can be tried by the Special Judge set up under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 18. These submissions were countered by Shri Anand Grover, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents. According to learned Counsel, this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2013 did not direct that there be a joint trial but only observed in passing that the special Judge "may" try the present case along with the main case. He further argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. 20. Read in the backdrop of Sections 220 and 223, it is clear that a discretion is vested with the Court to order a joint trial. In fact, in Chandra Bhal v. State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 983, this Court stated: Turning to the provisions of the Code, Section 233 embodies the general mandatory rule providing for a separate charge for every distinct offence and for separate trial for every such charge. The broad object underlying the general rule seems to be to give to the accused a notice of the precise accusation and to save him from being embarrassed in his defence by the confusion which is likely to result from lumping together in a single charge distinct offences and from combining several charges at one trial. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule and they are found in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. These exceptions embrace cases in which one trial for more than one offence is not considered likely to embarrass or prejudice the accused in his defence. The matter of joinder of charges is, however, in the general discretion of the court and the principle consideration controlling the judicial exercise of this discretion should be to avoid embarrassme....