9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1749 - SC - Indian LawsCriminal conspiracy in respect of the grant of 122 UAS licenses in the year 2008 against various unknown Government officials, persons and companies - second supplementary chargesheet should be tried by a Magistrate of the First Class or can be tried only by the learned Special Judge? - offences Under Section 120B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - It is clear that on a reading of the prayers in the said application, only a joint trial was asked for in pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 1.7.2013. In fact, on a reading of the application and the arguments made before the learned Special Judge, the Petitioners' main argument was that this Court, in the order dated 1.7.2013, had in fact mandated a joint trial. This was correctly turned down by the learned Special Judge, regard being had to the fact that this Court, in paragraph 25 of the judgment dated 1.7.2013, only stated that a discretion was vested with the Special Judge which he may well exercise given the facts of the case. The other contention of learned senior Counsel for the Petitioners before us has already been answered by this Court by upholding both the administrative order dated 15.3.2011 and the NCT notification dated 28.3.2011. This Court having held that the administrative order dated 15.3.2011 of the High court was valid, it is clear that even a Penal Code offence by itself-that is, such offence which is not to be tried with a Prevention of Corruption Act offence-would be within the Special Judge's jurisdiction inasmuch as the administrative order of the High Court gives power to the Special Court to decide all offences pertaining to the 2G Scam. In fact, once this order is upheld, the learned senior advocate's argument based on Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act pales into insignificance - once the challenge to the administrative order dated 15.3.2011, is specifically rejected, the offences arising out of the second supplementary chargesheet, being offences under the Penal Code relatable to the 2G scam, can be tried separately only by the Special Judge. There are no infirmity in the impugned judgment - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Validity of administrative orders and notifications conferring jurisdiction. 3. Legality of joint trial for offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Discretion of the court in ordering joint trials. 5. Finality of previous Supreme Court judgments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act: The case revolves around the jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Judge to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) arising out of the 2G Scam. The Supreme Court upheld the administrative order dated 15.3.2011 and the notification dated 28.3.2011, which appointed and conferred jurisdiction on the Special Judge to inquire into and try all cases arising out of the 2G Scam. The court clarified that the Special Judge has the jurisdiction to try offences under the IPC if they are related to the 2G Scam, as these offences are part of the same transaction. 2. Validity of Administrative Orders and Notifications Conferring Jurisdiction: The court examined the validity of the administrative order by the Delhi High Court and the notification by the Government of NCT of Delhi. It was held that under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the State Government is empowered to appoint Special Judges for specific cases or groups of cases. The administrative order and notification were found to be within the jurisdiction of the High Court and the NCT of Delhi, respectively, as they were in line with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Constitution of India. 3. Legality of Joint Trial for Offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act: The petitioners argued for a joint trial of the offences under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, citing Sections 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the decision to conduct a joint trial is discretionary and not mandatory. The court noted that the Special Judge had already exercised his discretion appropriately by deciding against a joint trial, considering the advanced stage of the trial in the main case and the potential for confusion and prejudice. 4. Discretion of the Court in Ordering Joint Trials: The court highlighted that the provisions under Sections 220 and 223 CrPC are enabling provisions that vest discretion in the court to order a joint trial if it serves the interest of justice. The Special Judge's decision not to conduct a joint trial was based on practical considerations, such as the significant progress made in the main trial and the distinct nature of the evidence and allegations in the supplementary chargesheet. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the Special Judge's reasoning that a joint trial at this stage would lead to a miscarriage of justice. 5. Finality of Previous Supreme Court Judgments: The Supreme Court reiterated that the judgment dated 1.7.2013, which dismissed the writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, had attained finality. The petitioners' subsequent attempts to challenge the jurisdiction or seek a joint trial were found to be contrary to the findings of the previous judgment. The court emphasized that the issues raised by the petitioners had already been settled, and there was no merit in reopening these matters. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, upholding the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to try the offences under the IPC related to the 2G Scam. The court affirmed that the administrative order and notification conferring jurisdiction were valid and within the legal framework. The decision not to order a joint trial was found to be a proper exercise of judicial discretion, considering the advanced stage of the main trial and the distinct nature of the charges. The finality of the previous judgment was maintained, and the court found no grounds to revisit the settled issues.
|
