2001 (10) TMI 1141 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Transfer of criminal cases post-bifurcation of Bihar.
2. Jurisdiction of courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Interpretation of "exclusively" in Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.

Summary:

1. Transfer of Criminal Cases Post-Bifurcation of Bihar:

The primary issue was whether 36 criminal cases related to the Bihar Fodder Scam stood transferred to the courts in Jharkhand after the bifurcation of Bihar on 15th November 2000. The Supreme Court examined Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, which mandates that proceedings pending before a court in Bihar, if related exclusively to the territory of Jharkhand, shall stand transferred to the corresponding court in Jharkhand.

2. Jurisdiction of Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

The court analyzed the jurisdiction under Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), which states that offences under the PC Act are to be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which the offence was committed. The court emphasized that the main offence in these cases was the fraudulent withdrawal of money from treasuries located in Jharkhand, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the Special Judges in Jharkhand.

3. Interpretation of "Exclusively" in Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000:

The term "exclusively" was interpreted to mean "substantially all" or "for the greater part," rather than "to the exclusion of all others." The Supreme Court held that since the primary acts of misappropriation occurred in Jharkhand, the cases related "exclusively" to Jharkhand. The court rejected the argument that acts done in Patna could retain jurisdiction in Bihar, focusing on the location of the main offence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that all 36 cases stood transferred to Jharkhand courts by operation of Section 89 of the Act. The Registrar of the Patna High Court was directed to transfer the records to Jharkhand, and the evidence already recorded would be treated as valid in the new jurisdiction. The impugned judgments were set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.