2009 (1) TMI 936 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. Validity of the registration of the case by CBI, Ranchi.
3. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and forgery.
4. Territorial jurisdiction for criminal offences.
5. Transfer of investigation.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay:
The appellant contended that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition since part of the cause of action arose in Maharashtra. The High Court rejected the writ petition, stating that the entire matter was pending before the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, and all documents were in the custody of the said court. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi.

2. Validity of the registration of the case by CBI, Ranchi:
The appellant sought to quash the registration of R.C. Case No. 1(A)/2004 by CBI, Ranchi, u/s 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court found that the CBI had initiated a suo-motu investigation based on reliable information and that the appellant had entered into a criminal conspiracy with officials of Ranchi University to obtain forged degree certificates.

3. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and forgery:
The appellant was accused of obtaining a forged degree certificate from Ranchi University and using it to secure employment with ITDC. The CBI alleged that the appellant conspired with university officials to suppress a letter from the Controller of Examination, Ranchi University, which declared the certificates as fake. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence to counter these allegations.

4. Territorial jurisdiction for criminal offences:
The Supreme Court referred to Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The Court cited precedents, including Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, to emphasize that the place of occurrence of the incident determines territorial jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the cause of action arose in Ranchi, justifying the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi.

5. Transfer of investigation:
The appellant requested that the investigation be transferred to RCF Police Station, Kurla, Mumbai. The Supreme Court, referencing previous judgments, held that the High Court should not have issued such a direction unless the investigating officer determined that the crime was not committed within their jurisdiction. The Court found no basis for transferring the investigation, as the major part of the cause of action occurred in Ranchi.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court of Judicature at Bombay's decision to reject the writ petition. The Court held that the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, had proper jurisdiction and that the investigation and trial should proceed there. The Transfer Petition was also disposed of accordingly.