TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, viz., acquiring of assets disproportionate to the appellant's known sources of income for the check period of 1.06.1988 to 22.02.2002. Contention of the appellant is that, as he had never been posted in Delhi during the aforementioned period, the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to his case. The learned Special Judge as also the High Court has rejected the said contention of the appellant. 4. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the ingredients of an offence involving Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act vis-'-vis the other provisions thereof read with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, viz., Sections 177 and 178 thereof, would clearly go to show that the situs of the properties which are said to have been acquired out of the income of the employee would not confer jurisdiction upon the court. 5. It was submitted that the only fact relevant therefore would be as to where the public servant concerned committed acts of misconduct or abused his official position, which would be the places where he had held his offices. It was urge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely: (a) any offence punishable under this Act; and (b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in Clause (a). (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). 4 - Cases triable by special Judges (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only. (2) Every offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. A distinction exists between a case filed under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act, on the one hand, and Section 13(1)(e) thereof, on the other. Ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act are: (i) The accused is a public servant; (ii) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession; (iii) His known sources of income, i.e., known to the prosecution. (iv) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once, however, the aforementioned ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct. [See M. Krishna Reddy (supra), para 7] One of the ingredients of offences, therefore, is known sources of income. What is material therefore is that the criminal misconduct had been committed during the period he held office and not the places where he had held offices. The fact that the appellant had bank accounts within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts as also immovable properties is not in dispute. Respondent in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, and it is a legitimate inference that he thereby obtained for himself or at least for the contractors, a pecuniary advantage. The act of abusing his position as a public servant certainly took place within the Kerala State where the false certificates were issued, and even if the consequence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage for himself or for the contractors which consequence makes that act an offence took place elsewhere, under Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, the special judge for Kerala would have jurisdiction to try the offence. That the special judge has jurisdiction to try Thomson for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is, in fact, not disputed. However, therein the factual matrix was absolutely different. In a case of this nature, the question of completion of any offence does not arise. 13. In a case involving Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, what is necessary is as to whether keeping in view the period in question, commonly known as check period, the public servant has acquired wealth which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. It has nothing to do with individual case of bribery. It has nothing to do with a se....