Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 884 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. B. C. Bhardwaj

2012-11-27

V.K.AHUJA

body2012
Judgment V.K. Ahuja, J. Present revision petition has been filed by the State of H.P. against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, dated 25.7.2011, vide which he had returned the file presented for cancellation of the case holding that the said Court at Shimla had no jurisdiction to accept the same. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at the instance of Managing Director, H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited dated 1.1.1999 alleging misconduct on the part of B.C. Bhardwaj, respondent No.1, while he was functioning as Area Manager at Area Office Himfed at Delhi. It was alleged that he had raised bank loans, paid interest and credits to various private firms, and all these transactions took place at Delhi. On the application of the Managing Director, FIR No.3/99, dated 1.1.1999, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla. The matter was investigated and cancellation report was preferred before the learned Special Judge, who considered the facts of the case and vide his impugned order observed that he had no jurisdiction to consider the report since the offence in question was committed at Delhi. 5. In coming to the above conclusion, the learned Special Judge has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in CBI AHD. Patna versus Braj Bhushan Prasad and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 4014, in which it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 42 as under: “Thus, if the PC Act has stipulated any place for trial of the offence under that Act the provisions of the Code would sand displaced to that extent in regard to the place of trial. We have, therefore, no doubt that when the offence is under Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act the sole determinative factor regarding the court having jurisdiction is the place where the offence was committed.” 6. We have, therefore, no doubt that when the offence is under Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act the sole determinative factor regarding the court having jurisdiction is the place where the offence was committed.” 6. Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under: “Cases triable by special Judges.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only. (2) Every offence specified in sub-section(1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or, where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.” 7. It is, therefore, clear from a perusal of Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that the special Judge of the area in which the offence was committed has the jurisdiction to try the case. Accordingly, whether it is a trial or a cancellation report, it has to be considered by the special Judge of the area within which the offence was committed. 8. In the present case, the offence in question, as alleged, was committed at Delhi. Therefore, the court at Delhi had the jurisdiction to consider the cancellation report. As such, the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla holding that he had no jurisdiction to consider the cancellation report calls for no interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. Record of the case be returned back to the concerned court forthwith.