TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the two former Chief Ministers of Bihar (Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra). The above indicated question winched to the fore on the midnight of 15th November, 2000, when the erstwhile State of Bihar got itself bifurcated into two States by the Act of Parliament called The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short the Act). One region of it became a new State called Jharkhand while the remaining region became the present State of Bihar. We are told that 64 cases have been registered relating to fodder scam. All the cases were directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) pursuant to an order passed by the High Court of Patna which was affirmed by this Court, with some modifications as per the judgment in State of Bihar and anr. vs. Ranchi Zila Samta party and anr. {1996 (3) SCC 682}. It is not disputed that 52 cases, out of the above, involve withdrawal of huge sums of money from the government treasuries situated in the territories now falling within Jharkhand State. Out of those 52 cases, charge-sheets have been filed by the CBI before the appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000 in 36 cases before the Special Court situated at Patna. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that State or the Central Government, as the case may be, or before the appointed day by the Government of the existing State of Bihar to be the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer. Before the appointed day (i.e. 15.11.2000) the erstwhile State of Bihar comprised of all the territories now included in the State of Jharkhand as well as the territories retained with the present State of Bihar. Jharkhand State is comprised mainly of three regions- (1) North Chhotanagpur (2) South Chhotanagpur (3) Santhal Pargana. Government treasuries situated at Dhanbad, Ranchi and Chaibasa were all located within Jharkhand area. The city of Patna which was the capital of the undivided State of Bihar falls within the region of the present State of Bihar. Patna is now the capital of the present State of Bihar. The above informations are useful for appreciating the rival contentions. It is admitted by both sides that in all the 36 cases (involved here) the allegations pertained to the withdrawal of crores of rupees made from the treasuries located in the territories of Jharkhand area. Long before the division of the State of Bihar courts were established for the trial of offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the High Court in the impugned judgment. That letter was assailed before us also on the premise that only the Central Government has the power to specify, which out of the two courts, can try any particular class of cases. This is so provided in Section 4(2) of the PC Act. Be that as it may, we would decide the present dispute de hors the validity or otherwise of the said letter. It is not disputed before us that the courts of the Special Judges situated within Jharkhand area have jurisdiction to try all the 36 cases now involved. The High Court, as per the impugned judgment, considered the question whether the court at Patna also has the jurisdiction to try them. Various acts alleged against different accused in such cases were highlighted and it was found that the Special Court at Patna also had the jurisdiction to try the offence in view of Section 179 and Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). The former section enables that the offence involved may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such offence had been done or the consequence has ensued. Under the latter section offences can be enquired into or tried by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely to that territory, in view of the acts narrated in the charge-sheets submitted in R.C. 20A, R.C.30 A and R.C. 64A. He also submitted that the principle enunciated in Sections 178 to 180 of the Code can be applied and the criminal misconduct alleged against Lalu Prasad Yadav cannot then be said to relate exclusively to the Jharkhand State. He pointed out that even according to the admitted position the acts done by the public servants located in Patna as well as in Jharkhand area have resulted in the commission of offences and consequently the test of exclusivity envisaged in Section 89 of the Act cannot absolve the courts in Patna from jurisdiction to try the cases involved in these appeals. Shri P.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for Dr. Jagannath Mishra, pointed out that the very fact that CBI laid the charge-sheets in the Patna court was on account of the position that the courts at Patna had jurisdiction to try the case. He also submitted that the question of jurisdiction must be considered in view of Sections 179 and 180 of the Code and that the word exclusively in Section 89 of the Act cannot have a meaning other than to the exclusion of all others. Shri Aji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e do not agree. The word exclusively as here used means substantially all or for the greater part. This word must be a given a practical construction. We may point out that the aforesaid observation has been profitably used by the editors of Corpus Juris Secundum (vide Page 113 of Volume 33). In Words and Phrases an extract from American Management Association vs. Assessors of Town of Madison (406 NYS 583) has been reproduced thus: Term exclusively, as used in provision of Real Property Tax Law exempting from taxation real property owned by a corporation organized or conducted exclusively for educational purposes and used exclusively for such purpose, means primarily. Yet another extract from Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. Employment Division (534 P.2d 190) has also been quoted like this: Word exclusively within statutory provision defining agricultural labor exempt from payment of unemployment compensation taxes as including all services performed in connection with operation or maintenance of ditches, canals, reservoirs or waterways not owned or operated for profit used exclusively for supplying and storing water for farming purposes, operates to relieve an irrigation di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to all proceedings, after the bifurcation if they were to be instituted after the appointed day. Any interpretation should be one which achieves that object and not that which might create confusion or perplexity or even bewilderment to the officers of the respective States. In other words, the interpretation should be made with pragmatism, not pedantically or in a stilted manner. For the purpose of criminal cases, we should bear in mind the subject matter of the case to be transferred. When so considering, we have to take into account further that all the 36 cases are primarily for the offences under the PC Act and hence they are all triable before the courts of Special Judges. Hence, the present question can be determined by reference to the provisions of PC Act. The charge-sheets in all these cases were filed in the court of the Special Judge at Patna when the State of Bihar remained undivided prior to 15.11.2000. By the notification dated 5.6.1996 (supra) that court was conferred with the territorial jurisdiction to try all cases falling under the PC Act. Added to it when the Registrar of the High Court of Patna directed (rightly or wrongly) the District and Sessions Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acy or attempt or abetment of such main offence was committed. It is only when the main offence was not committed, but only the conspiracy to commit that offence or the attempt or the abetment of it alone was committed, then the question would arise whether the court of the Special Judge within whose area such conspiracy etc. was committed could try the case. For our purpose it is unnecessary to consider that aspect because the charges proceed on the assumption that the main offence was committed. What is the main offence in the charges involved in all these 36 cases? It is undisputed that the main offence is under Section 13(1)(c) and also Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The first among them is described thus: A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person to do so. The next offence is described like this: A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (d) if he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is subject of the offence was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused. Now, observe the distinction between Section 181(4) of the Code and Section 4(2) of the PC Act. When the former provision envisaged at least four courts having jurisdiction to try a case involving misappropriation the latter provision of the PC Act has restricted it to one court i.e. the Court of the Special Judge for the area within which the offence was committed. No other court is envisaged for trial of that offence. We pointed out above that when the charge contains the offence or offences punishable under the PC Act as well as the offence of conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or any abetment of any such offence, the court within whose local jurisdiction the main offence was committed alone has jurisdiction. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel contended that Section 4(2) of the PC Act does not override the provisions of the Code regarding jurisdiction because among the four sub-sections included in Section 4 of the said Act, only first and the last sub-sections are tagged with the non obstante wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the supply of timber for the Central Railways Administration. But the consignees of the timber were at Bombay, Hyderabad and Jhansi. For the supply of timber, bills were passed and payments were made at New Delhi as per cheques which were encashed at Bombay. But the supply of low quality of timber was made within the State of Kerala. Certificate for good quality of such timber was issued at different places situated in the State of Kerala by one Thomson, Inspecting Officer of the Railway Board, Bombay. The said officer, along with other accused were prosecuted before the court of a Special Judge at Kerala for the above-mentioned offences. The main accused - Thomson - raised the question regarding jurisdiction of that court situated at Kerala. Learned Judge held that taking the first offence under Section 5(2) of the PC Act, alleged to have been committed by Thomson, there can be little doubt that it was committed within the State of Kerala where he passed inferior jungle wood as timber of the contract quality and issued false certificates to that effect. It was argued before the learned Judge that the conspiracy took place outside the State of Kerala and hence Section 180 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deal with the overt acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. The latter decision is concerned with the converse position. In the light of the discussions made above it is immaterial whether such other court would also have jurisdiction in the circumstances of those cases. Shri P.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Banwari lal Jhunjhunwala and ors. vs. Union of India and anr. {1963 Supple.(2) SCR 338}. We may point out that this is the same case in which the Kerala High Court had decided the question of jurisdiction in the decisions cited supra. When an offshoot of the said case reached this Court the question focussed here was whether different bills created for the purpose of cheating would have been treated as relating to distinct offences warranting separate charges to be framed. We do not find any aid from the said decision for the question involved in the present cases. We are now coming to the final conclusion. In our considered view all the 36 cases involved in these appeals stood transferred to the corresponding courts situated within the territories of the Jharkhand State on the appointed day (i.e. 15.11.2000) by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
