9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 petitioner that the matter will be settled in his favor for which he will have to pay illegal gratification Rs. 1.5 Crore. It is alleged that petitioner agreed and also paid Rs. 1.5 crore in installments to Mr. Syed Burhanuddin for the purpose of getting relief in the cases registered against him. Some payment were made in the account of Mr. Sanjay Tapariya by way of Hawala payment, whereas for the rest of the payment, it is alleged that petitioner proposed that he will make remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 State of Punjab reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1 and it is submitted that Section 8 of P.C. Act is applicable only to private persons. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Puran vs State of Haryana, reported in (1997) SCC Online P&H 1197, hence, it is prayed relief be granted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for CBI submits that FIR has been registered in New Delhi, therefore, CBI has inherent jurisdiction to investigate the case. Referring to the judgment passed in WPCR No.791/2018, Anand Agrawa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 for issuance of writs, therefore, it is prayed that petition be allowed. 8. Heard both the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. The main issue in this case is whether respondent No.1 had jurisdiction in the case registered in New Delhi as FIR No.217/A0004, to investigate in the State of Chhattisgarh, without grant of permission under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 10. Question raised is purely legal according to the facts of case. 11. Interestingly, one Anand Agrawal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding 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 issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the issue is not within the said territories. In order to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 India and the view expressed by Supreme Court in Navinchandra's case (supra), 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 Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 to as a precedent." 18. The Delhi High Court in Anand Agrawal's case (supra) 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, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant 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 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
