TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For C.B.I. : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Asst. Solicitor General with Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Advocates. For State/respondent : Ms. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate ORDER Heard. 1. This petition has been brought under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for quashment of FIR lodged by respondent No.1 for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code(for short 'IPC') read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Brief facts of the case are these, that two cases were registered by CBI against the petitioner in the year 2010. In one case registered by CBI/ACB, Bhilai, charge-sheet has been filed whereas in another case registered by respondent No.3 in Delhi was under investigation. It is alleged that the petitioner approached one Mr. Bhagwan Singh resident of Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. seeking to get relief from the cases registered against him. Said Mr. Bhagwan Singh introduced the petitioner to one Syed Burhanuddin @ O.P. Sharma @ O.P. Singh resident of Hyderabad, Telangana, who claimed himself to be a person from the office of the Prime Minister. Assurance was given by said Mr. Syed Burhanuddin to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of connection with any public servant and how he was going to influence such public servant. Therefore, the requirement to show the commission of offence under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not at all made out. It is also submitted that FIR itself shows that all incidents and transactions have taken place in Raipur, therefore, CBI, Delhi has no jurisdiction either to lodge FIR or investigate the case. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the matter of M. Balakrishna Reddy vs Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi reported in (2008) 4 SCC 409. It is submitted that to investigate in such a case the special consent of a State Government is necessary. Also referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ms. Mayawati vs Union of India Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 106 it is submitted that in this particular case, the respondent/CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that FIR lodged against the petitioner be quashed. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani vs State of Maharashtra Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 551 Prakash Singh Badal vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in this case. According to the requirement under Section 177 of CrPC, nothing has happened in New Delhi, whereas the evidence regarding payments made to Sanjay Tapariya and others are the transactions which have happened in Chhattisgarh. There is no evidence to show that handing over money to Bhagwan Singh took place in New Delhi, therefore, the Court in Delhi has no jurisdiction. It is further submitted that just because coaccused has preferred Writ Petition before the High Court of New Delhi, this petitioner is not bound by the order of the Delhi High Court. This petition is not affected by that order because he is not a party to that petition. It is also submitted that one SLP was filed by co-accused Anand Agrawal before Supreme Court, which was although dismissed, but the question of law was left open. Therefore the question of law has been raised before this Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majitha vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640. It is submitted that Territories within which cause of action, wholly or in part, arises , the High Court of that State shall have jurisdiction in such case fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission v. Utpal Kumar Basu1 considered at length the question of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the relevant observation made in the judgment are extracted hereunder:(SCC pp. 716-17, paras5-6) 5.Clause(1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante clause-notwithstanding anything in Article 32-and provides that every High Court shall have power 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, 'within those territories' directions, orders or writs, for the enforceable of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. Under clause(2) of Article 226 the High Court may exercise its power conferred by clause(1) if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution it become clear that a High Court can exercise the power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Government need not consent only because some other State Government has accorded its consent. Therefore, on the logic of the judgment in Virbhadra Singh (supra), if the consent of eight different States had to be taken and the consent is obtained only of five States, that would mean that the investigation conducted in the remaining three States cannot be considered by the CBI and has to be jettisoned from the charge-sheet. The trial Court, on this reasoning would not be able to look into that part of the evidence. 28. The CBI's case is that offence of criminal conspiracy for which the case has been registered was committed not in Chhattisgarh but in New Delhi. That explains why the CBI has registered the case in New Delhi. The Court finds merit in the contention of the CBI that merely because the further acts pursuant to that criminal conspiracy were performed by the co-accused in a place outside Delhi, in this case Raipur, there would be no necessity for the CBI to seek the prior sanction of Respondent No.3 under Section 6 DSPE Act to take further steps to investigate that case in Raipur or other places in Chhattisgarh. 14.As per Article 226 of the Constitution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the point that the previous sanction of the State under Section 6 of the Act is essential and without that the investigation, if any, becomes invalid. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has observed as under:- 192. The submission of the petitioners that the income-tax proceedings are still pending and, therefore, the registration of the RC/ FIR is premature also has no merit. The income-tax proceedings are only concerning the tax liability of the concerned assessee. The income-tax authorities are not examining as to whether the income derived by petitioner no.1 10 during the check period is a result of criminal misconduct under the PC Act. It is not even argued by the petitioners that a perusal of the RC does not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and Section 109 IPC. This submission of the petitioners is, therefore, rejected. 17. A distinction is clearly made out between the judgment in Virbhadra Singh(supra) and the instant case. The judgment of Delhi High Court in Anand Agrawal's case(supra) has not been stayed or interfered with by the Supreme Court, therefore it holds ground and can be referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reward for inducing a public servant to do an act or do a favour or render some service as stated under Section 8 of the Act. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is vague for whom the appellant had demanded the money and whether the person for whom the appellant demanded and received the money is a public servant. Though the receiver of the money, like in the present case may not be a public servant, the prosecution has to establish by convincing evidence that the amount must have been received for inducing a public servant for doing something by that public servant in his official capacity. So far as confirmation of the seat in the Indian Airlines, there may be persons in the middle who may be a public servant or a travel agency or others. In the absence of convincing evidence to show that the appellant had received the money from PW-4,to induce a public servant to get the confirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the PC Act cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted 20.As observed in this case by the Supreme Court and as per provisions of Section 8 of the PC Act, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
