9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1581 - HC - Indian LawsTerritorial Jurisdiction - Payment of illegal gratification to get relief from the cases registered - Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act - principles of res-judicata - whether respondent No.1 had jurisdiction in the case registered in New Delhi to investigate in the State of Chhattisgarh without grant of permission under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act? - HELD THAT - As per Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the view expressed by Supreme Court in Navinchandra s case 2000 (9) TMI 925 - SUPREME COURT it may be so that partly the cause of action has arisen in the State of Chhattisgarh as some part of investigation has been conducted by the CBI in Chhattisgarh State. Although this petition has been filed previously on 21.2.2017 whereas WP(Criminal) No. 79/1989 was filed at New Delhi High Court in the year 2018 but the High Court at Delhi has already heard and decided criminal writ petition of co-accused person and that decision too is by a Division Bench. According to the same principle as expressed in Majithia s Case regarding the jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India the High Court at New Delhi also has jurisdiction to entertain a petition and decide the same on the same logic that the FIR has been registered at New Delhi. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the conspiracy was hatched up in New Delhi therefore the High Court of New Delhi has been the first to exercise jurisdiction and pass an order in the same case with respect to coaccused Anand Agrawal. There being a decision of a High Court exercising competent jurisdiction hence this Court being a Court of Single Judge cannot take up the said issue in the same case to consider and decide the same. The rule of judicial propriety is applicable in such cases therefore under the judicial discipline it is not proper for this Court to take up for decision an issue which has already been decided by a Division Bench of a High Court of competent jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court in Anand Agrawal s case 2018 (10) TMI 1938 - DELHI HIGH COURT has very clearly held that CBI has registered the case in New Delhi only because some of the acts of criminal conspiracy were performed by the accused persons outside Delhi i.e. in Raipur in that case there would be no necessity for CBI to seek prior sanction of State under Section 6 of the Act for the purpose of investigation. Hence this issue has already been decided and as per the call of judicial discipline and also the principle of res-judicata there is no need to reconsider it again. Hence the issue raised by the petitioner on the point of jurisdiction of CBI investigating the case in Chhattisgarh without prior sanction under Section 6 of the Act is answered accordingly. As per provisions of Section 8 of the PC Act it is very clear that a person who accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain any illegal gratification is himself not a public servant. It is only his endeavor or intention to induce by corrupt or illegal means any public servant is relevant. There is no specific detail in the charge-sheet as to who was the public servant who was to be induced by corrupt or illegal means. Be that as it may the requirement of proof under Section 8 of PC Act is complete when it is proved that an accused has accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any public servant whether named or otherwise to do or to forbear to do any official act or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person or to render or attempt to render any service etc. This whole section does not put-forth a requirement that the public servant must also be identified for the purpose of Section 8 of PC Act it is applicable only to a private person who is not a public servant. There are no substance in this petition - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CBI to investigate in Chhattisgarh without State consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 2. Validity of the FIR under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Applicability of Section 120-B of IPC for criminal conspiracy. 4. Procedural opportunity for the petitioner to argue for discharge during trial. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of CBI to Investigate in Chhattisgarh: The petitioner argued that the CBI, New Delhi, lacked authority to investigate the case in Chhattisgarh without obtaining special consent from the State, as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The petitioner referenced the Chhattisgarh State Notification dated 19.7.2012 and several judgments, including Virbhadra Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing the necessity of State consent for CBI investigations. The CBI countered that the FIR was registered in New Delhi, thus granting them inherent jurisdiction. They cited the judgment in Anand Agrawal vs Union of India, where the Delhi High Court held that the criminal conspiracy was committed in New Delhi, and therefore, no State consent was required for further investigation in Raipur. The court concluded that the Delhi High Court had already decided on the jurisdiction issue in a related case, establishing that CBI did not need prior State consent for investigations following a conspiracy registered in New Delhi. The principle of judicial propriety and res judicata applied, preventing reconsideration of the issue. 2. Validity of the FIR under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The petitioner contended that the FIR lacked specifics required under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, arguing that there was no evidence showing the involvement of a public servant or how the accused intended to influence such a servant. The court examined the provisions of Section 8, which penalizes accepting gratification to influence a public servant, even if the public servant is not identified. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Babji V State of Andhra Pradesh, which clarified that the prosecution must prove the solicitation or receipt of gratification as a motive to influence a public servant. The court found that the charge-sheet did not need to specify the public servant involved, as the section applies to private individuals attempting to induce public servants through corrupt means. Thus, the argument against the applicability of Section 8 was dismissed. 3. Applicability of Section 120-B of IPC for Criminal Conspiracy: The petitioner argued that no case of conspiracy was made out against him based on the charge-sheet's material. The court noted that the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed. The petitioner could argue for discharge during the trial at the stage of framing charges. The court referenced judgments, including Ashoke Kumar vs Kunal Saha and Chotelal Nishad vs State of Chhattisgarh, to emphasize that the petitioner had procedural opportunities to challenge the conspiracy charges during the trial. 4. Procedural Opportunity for the Petitioner to Argue for Discharge: The court highlighted that the petitioner had the opportunity to make submissions during the trial at the stage of framing charges and could pray for discharge based on the available material in the charge-sheet. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the CBI's jurisdiction to investigate without State consent, validating the FIR under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recognizing the petitioner's procedural rights to argue for discharge during the trial. The issues raised by the petitioner were found to lack substance, and the petition was accordingly dismissed.
|
