Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
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.
|