TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her Court shall pass any order which may in any manner impede the investigation being carried out by the CBI and Directorate of Enforcement. On 2.4.2011, and 25.4.2011, CBI filed a chargesheet and a first supplementary chargesheet against 12 accused persons for offences committed both under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is common ground that none of the Petitioners before us were named or mentioned in these two chargesheets. 6. The present case arises out of a second supplementary chargesheet dated 12.12.2011 naming 8 persons as accused, alleging offences Under Section 120B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code. It is relevant to mention that this second supplementary chargesheet which implicated the Petitioners before us did not contain any offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI mentioned in the said chargesheet that separate offences came to their notice during the investigation of FIR RC No. DAI 2009 A 0045, as a result of which the second supplementary chargesheet was being filed. They further went on to state that these charges are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class but may be endorsed to any appropriate court as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of 2011 titled 'CBI v. Ravikant Ruia and Ors.' and all proceedings emanating therefrom; d) Pass such other further orders, which may be required in the interest of justice equity and good conscience. 9. It will thus be seen that prayers (a) and (b) concern themselves with quashing the administrative order dated 15.3.2011 of the High Court and the notification dated 28.3.2011 of the Government of NCT of Delhi, both appointing and conferring jurisdiction on the Special Judge to enquire into and try all cases arising out of the 2G Scam. Prayer (c) was devoted to setting aside the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge taking cognizance. 10. In a detailed judgment, this Court set out the arguments of the Petitioners as follows: The learned Counsel for the Petitioner(s) assailed the impugned Administrative Order passed by the Delhi High Court dated 15-3-2011 and the Notification dated 28-3-2011 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi on the following grounds: 14.1. The impugned notification travels beyond the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that offences underIndian Penal Code ought to be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation dated 28.3.2011 and then held: On the question of validity of the Notification dated 28-3-2011 issued by the NCT of Delhi and Administrative Order dated 15-3-2011 passed by the Delhi High Court, we hold as follows: 30.1. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the PC Act the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try any offence punishable under the PC Act. In the present case, as admittedly, co-accused have been charged under the provisions of the PC Act, and such offence punishable under the PC Act, the NCT of Delhi is well within its jurisdiction to issue notification(s) appointing Special Judge(s) to try the 2G Scam case(s). 30.2. Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution are attracted in cases where appointments of persons to be Special Judges or their postings to a particular Special Court are involved. The control of the High Court is comprehensive, exclusive and effective and it is to subserve a basic feature of the Constitution i.e. independence of judiciary. (See High Court of Judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate directions to ensure that the proceedings i.e. CC No. 1 of 2011 and CC No. 1B of 2011 are assimilated into one Trial and for this purpose issue appropriate directions to rectify the situation as to the past, and for further proceedings, direct that the Trial being C.C. No. 1 of 2011 is conducted in conformity with Section 220 with 223 Code of Criminal Procedure; and/or Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 15. The other two writ Petitioners, whose petitions had been dismissed by this Court by the judgment dated 1.7.2013, namely, M/s. Loop Telecom Limited and Mr. Vikash Saraf, both filed review petitions against the judgment dated 1.7.2013, in which they raised the self-same grounds that were argued before this Court. These review petitions were dismissed by this Court on 24.9.2013. It can be seen from this narration of facts that the judgment dated 1.7.2013 has become final between all the parties to the lis. 16. The immediate cause for filing of the present appeals is a judgment dated 2.9.2013 by which the Special Judge dismissed the application filed by Essar Teleholdings Ltd. asking for a joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmit that in any case the provisions of Sections 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vest a discretion in the Court, which discretion has been appropriately exercised by the learned Special Judge on the facts of the present case. He went on to argue that if there were to be a joint trial, all the accused would necessarily have to give their consent which is not the case here. He also went on to submit, by citing Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 422, that the expression same trial occurring in Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act could also mean that the present case may be tried immediately after the trial in the main case is over. 19. Having heard learned Counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the learned senior advocate for the Petitioners is attempting to raise submissions which have already been rejected by this Court by its judgment dated 1.7.2013. His main submission, that in the fitness of things, the second supplementary chargesheet should be tried by a Magistrate of the First Class would be directly contrary to the finding of this Court that the said second supplementary chargesheet be tried only by the learned Speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. This exception like the other exceptions merely permits a joint trial of more offences than one. It neither renders a joint trial imperative nor does it bar or prohibit separate trials. Sub-section (2) of Section 403 of the Code also provides that a person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial Under Section 235(1). No legal objection to the Appellant's separate trial is sustainable and his counsel has advisedly not seriously pressed any before us. [at para 5] 21. 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 Spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
