Holding

A Special Court may try an accused if any part of the offence, including the location of a known source of income, falls within its territorial jurisdiction; thus the Delhi Special Court was competent to try the case.

Summary

V.K. Puri, a customs officer, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (s.13(2) read with s.13(1)(e)) for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the 1988‑2002 check period. He owned bank accounts and immovable property in Delhi, the rental income from a Delhi flat being a declared source of income. Puri contended that because he was never posted in Delhi, the Delhi Special Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The CBI argued that s.5(3) of the Act incorporates the Code of Criminal Procedure, and under CrPC s.178 any court where a part of the offence occurred may try the case. The Supreme Court held that each Special Court having jurisdiction over any part of the offence – such as where a known source of income is situated – can try the accused, and the situs of the assets is irrelevant. Consequently, the Delhi Special Court had jurisdiction and the appeal (and related transfer petition) was dismissed.

Issues considered

The territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for offences under s.13(1)(e).
Whether the location of the accused's known sources of income determines jurisdiction.
Whether s.5(3) of the 1988 Act makes CrPC sections 177 and 178 applicable to proceedings under the Act.
Whether the situs of the assets is relevant to jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 177, s. 178
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(e), s. 13(2), s. 5(3)

Subjects

Prevention of Corruption Actterritorial jurisdictionspecial courtdisproportionate assetsknown sources of incomeCrPC s.178purposive construction

Judgment

V.K.PURI A
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

APRIL 27, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-ss. 13(/)(e) & 5(3)-0ffence by
public servant of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income-Territorial jurisdiction of Special Court under the Act-Jurisdiction
in which the offence would be triable-Determination of-Held: Each Court, C
where a part of the offence has been committed, would be entitled to try the
accused-The Act does not bar application of s.178, CrPC, hence, the/act
that the accused has a part of his known source of income at Delhi would
confer jurisdiction upon the Court at Delhi-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-ss. 177 & 178-Interpretation of Statutes-Purposive construction. D

Appellant was an officer in the Customs Department. An FIR was
registered against him under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that he acquired assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income for the check period 1988 to 2002. Appellant had
bank accounts and immovable properties in Delhi. A part of his known sources E
of income was the rental received by him from his Delhi flat.

It is contended by the Appellant that the situs of the assets is not relevant
and that the only fact relevant would be as to where the public servant
concerned committed acts of misconduct or abused his official position, which
would be the places where he had held his offices. It is contended that as F
Appellant had never been posted in Delhi during the aforementioned check
period, the Special Court at Delhi within meaning of the provisions of the Act
has no territorial jurisdiction to his case.

Respondent, however, contended that as by reason of sub-section (3) of
Section S of the Act, the provisions of Cr PC have been made applicable in G
relation to the proceedings initiated under the Act, in a case where the offence
was committed at more than one place, any of the Courts concerned will have
jurisdiction to try the offence.

807
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

Dismissing the appeal as also the connected transfer petition, the Court ~ .
A
HELD: 1. The 1988 Act is a Special Act. It over-rides the provisions of
the general law, viz., Code of Criminal Procedure. But, then when a matter is
not covered by the 1988 Act, in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of t~e ,.
1988 Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall clearly be'
B applicable. [Para 11) (814-C, DJ

2.1. A distinction exists between a case filed under Sections 13(1)(c)
and 13(l)(d) of the 1988 Act, on the one hand, and Section 13(1)(e) thereof,
on the other. [Para 12) (814-D]

c 2.2. Ingredients of the offence under Section 13(l)(e) of the 1988 Act
are: (i) The accused is a public servant; (ii) The nature and extent of the
pecuniary resources of property found in his possession; (iii) his known
sources of income, i.e., known to the prosecution and (iv) such resources or
properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his
known sources of income. (Para 13] [814-E, F]
D
2.3. Once, however, the aforementioned ingredients are established by
the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that
the prosecution case is not correct. [Para 14] (814-F, G]

M Krishna Reddy v. State deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad,
E (1992] 4 sec 45, relied on.

3.1. One of the ingredients of offences is known sources of income. What
is material therefore is that the criminal misconduct had been committed
during the period he had held office and not the places where he had held
offices. The fact that the appellant had bank accounts within the jurisdiction
F
of the Delhi Courts as also immovable properties is not in dispute. Respondent
in the chargesheet has clearly pointed out that one of his known sources of
income was the rental received by him from his Delhi flat. The same had been
given due credit for the purpose of arriving at a prima facie satisfaction that
the assets possessed of by him are disproportionate to his known source of
G income. [Para 15] (814-G; 815-A]
..
3.2. From a perusal of the chargesheet, it furthermore appears that the
appellant is said to have acquired large properties including several bank
accounts. For the purpose of proving the offence, therefore, on the one hand~
known sources of income must be ascertained vis-a-vis the possession of
H
V.K. PURI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 809
property or resources which were disproportionate to the known sources of A
income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for
it, on the other. Whereas the burden to prove the first part of the offence is
on the prosecution, in the event the same is proved, it would shift to the public
servant concerned. [Para 16] [815-8, C]

P. Nallamma/ and Anr. v. State Represented by Inspector ofPolice, (1999) B
6 sec 559, relied on.

4.1. The present case is not a case where the offence revolves round
any conspiracy or abetment to commit an offence. It is also not a case falling
under Clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the 1988 Act. C
Appellant is not accused of commission o{ such an offence. No other person
has been charged with the offence of abetment and conspiracy. The question
of finding out the place where he offence was completed, thus, does not arise
in this case. [Para 17) [815-D, E]

4.2. In a case of this nature, the question of completion of any offence D
does not arise. [Para 19) [816-C]

CBL ADH, Patna v. Braj Bhushan Prasad and Ors., (2001] 9 SCC 432
and Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalla and Ors. v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1959) Kerala
311, distinguished.
E
5.1. In a case involving Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, what is
necessary is as to whether keeping in view the period in question, commonly
known as check period, the public servant has acquired wealth which is
disproportionate to his known sources of income. It has nothing to do with
individual case of liberty. It has nothing to do with a series of acts culminated
into an offence. [Para 20] [816-E] F
5.2. Each Court, where a part of the offence has been committed, would,
therefore, be entitled to try an accused. The 1988 Act does not bar application
of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If application of the
provision of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred, the
fact that the appellant has a part of his known source of income at Delhi would G
confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi Courts. It is one thing to say that only the
Special Courts will have jurisdiction to try the offence, but for the purpose of
arriving at a decision as to the Special Judge of which place shall have the
requisite jurisdiction, the situs of the property may or may not have any
relevance. Once the situs of the property is held to have relevance for the H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.
....
A purpose of ascertaining his known source of income and consequent
acquisition of disproportionate assets, the Special Judge concerned will also
have the requisite jurisdiction to try the case. For the said purpose, purport
and object for which the 1988 Act has been enacted must be taken into
consideration. The doctrine of purposive construction therefor must be taken
recourse to. [Para 21) [816-D, E, F, G]
B
Kamal Dev v. State of Haryana, (1986) 3 Crimes 305, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 635 of
2007.

c From·the Final Judgment and Order dated Ql.09.2006 of the High Court
of Delhi in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 556 of2006.

wrrn
T.P. (Cr!.) No. 351 of2006.
D
L. Nageshwara Rao, R.K. Handoo, K.V. Mohan, K.V. Balakrishnan and
I.D. Vaid for the Appellant.

A. Sharan, ASG., Amit Anand Tiwari, Vikas Sharma, T.A. Khan and P.
Parmeshwaran for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. What would be the territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court within the
~
F meaning of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short
"the I 988 Act") is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of
a judgment and order dated 1.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in
Cr!. Rev. Petition No. 556 of2006.

3. Appellant was an officer working in the Customs Department. Central
G Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report against him
purported to be for commission of an offence under Section 13(2) read with
Section I3(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, viz., acquiring of assets disproportionate to
~ -
the appellant's known sources of income for the check period of 1.06.1988 to
22.02.2002. Contention of the appellant is that, as he had never been posted
in Delhi during the aforementioned period, the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction
H
V.K. PURI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.] 811

1 :. to his case. The learned Special Judge as also the High Court has rejected A
the said contention of the appellant.

4. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, would submit that the ingredients of an offence involving
Section 13(l)(e) of the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the other provisions thereof read
with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, viz., Sections B
177 and 178 thereof, would clearly go to show that the situs of the properties
which are said to have been acquired out of the income of the employee
1 would not confer jurisdiction upon the court.

5. It was submitted that the only fact relevant therefor would be as to C
where the public servant concerned committed acts of misconduct or abused
his official position, which would be the places where he had held his offices.
It was urged that the principal place of commission of offence will have to
be judged having regard to the area where the offence has been said to have
been completed. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on M Krishna Reddy
v. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, (1992] 4 SCC 45 and D
CBI, ADH, Patna v. Braj Bhushan Prasad and Ors., (2001] 9 SCC 432.

6. Drawing our attention to a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court rendered by M.M. Punchhi, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was)
in Kamal Dev v. State of Haryana, (1986) 3 Crimes 305, it was submitted that
the term "possession" would refer to the source and not the situs of the E
property.

7. Mr. A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that as by reason
of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the 1988 Act, the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure have been made applicable in relation to the proceedings F
initiated against the 1988 Act, in a case where the offence was committed at
more than one place, any of the courts concerned will have jurisdiction to try
the offence. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on P. Nailammal and Anr.
v. State Represented by Inspector of Police., (1999] 6 SCC 559.

8. Before embarking on the questions involved herein, we may noti<:e G
the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the 1988 Act.

9. Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under:

"177 - Ordinary place of inquiry and trial
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178 - Place of inquiry or trial

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was
B committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly
in another, or

(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be
committed in more local areas .than one, or
c
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,

it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any
of such local areas."

D 10. The relevant provisions of the 1988 Act read as under:

"3 - Power to appoint special Judges

(I) The Central Government or 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
E of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following
offences, namely:--

(a) any offence punishable under this Act; and

(b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment
F of any of the offences specified in clause (a).

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a special Judge
· under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an
Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974).
G
4 - Cases triable by special Judges

(I) 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 (I) of section 3 shall be
H tried by special Judges only.
V.K. PURI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.]813
., ).
K(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be A
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.
B
(3) ***

(4) ***
1
S - Procedure and powers of special Judge

(I) A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the
accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the accused
c
persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2of1974), for the trial of warrant case by Magistrates.

(2) ***
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (I) or sub-section (2), the D
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall,
so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, apply to the
proceedings before a special Judge; and for purposes of the said
provisions, the Court of the special Judge shall be deemed to be a
Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a
E
special Judge shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor.

(4) ***

(5) ***

(6) ***
F
*** *** ***
13 - Criminal, misconduct by a public servant
(I) A public servant is said to commit the offence o~ criminal
misconduct, -
G
~ (a) ***

(b) ***
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise
converts for his own use any property entrusted to him ar under his
control as a public servant or allows any other person to do so; or H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A (d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advan41ge; or
(ii) by abu.sing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or
for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
B
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public, interest;
or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any
C time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the
public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources
or property disproportionate to his known sources of income."
11. The 1988 Act is a Special Act. It over-rides the provisions of the
general law, viz., Code of Criminal Procedure. But, then when a matter is not
D covered by the 1988 Act, in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the 1988
Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall clearly be applicable.
12. A distinction exists between a case filed under Sections 13(1Xc) and
13(1 Xd) of the 1988 Act, on the one hand, and Section 13(1 Xe) thereof, on
the other.
E 13. Ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1Xe) of the 1988 Act are:
(i) The accused is a public servant;
(ii) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property
found in his possession;
F (iii) His known sources of income, i.e., known to the prosecution.

(iv) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused
were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
14. Once, however, the aforementioned ingredients are established by
the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that
G the prosecution case is not correct. [See M Krishna Reddy (supra), para 7]
15. One of the -ingredients of offences, therefore, is known sources of
income. What is material therefor is that the criminal misconduct had been
committed during the period he held office and not the places where he had
held offices. The fact that the appellant had bank accounts within the jurisdiction
H
V.K. PURI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.]815
. A
of the Delhi Courts as also immovable properties is not in dispute. Respondent A
in the chargesheet has clearly pointed out that one of his known sources of
income was the rental reteived by him from his Delhi flat. The same had been
a
given due credit for the purpose of arriving at prima facie satisfaction that
the assets possessed of by him are disproportionate to his known source of
income.
B
16. From a perusal of the chargesheet, it furthermore appears that the
appellant is said to have acquired large properties including several bank
accounts. For the purpose of proving the offence, therefore, on the one hand,
known sources of income must be ascertained vis-a-vis the possession of
property or resources which were disproportionate to the known sources of
income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account
c
for it, on the other. Whereas the burden to prove the first part of the offence
is on the prosecution, in the event the same is proved, it would shift to the
public servant concerned. [See P. Nallammal (supra)]

., 17. It is not a case where the offence revolves round any conspiracy D
or abetment to commit an offence to commit an offence. It is also not a case
.. falling under Clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the 1988
Act as was the case in Braj Bhushan Prasad (supra). Appellant is not
accused of commission of such an offence. No other person has been charged
with the offenc; of abetment and conspiracy. The question of finding out the
place where the offence was completed, thus, does not arise in this case. E
-l 8. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Nageshwara Rao on a Single
Judge Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Banwari/al Jhunjhunwa/la
and Ors v. Union of India, AIR (1959) Kerala 311 wherein it was observed:

"13. Taking the first offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of F
Corruption ,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. (Of course these statements
are as yet no more than assumptions based on the prosecution case, G
in accordance with which the question of jurisdiction has to be
determined and it is unnecessary to repeat this caution at every stage
of the discussion).

When Thomson did this, he was undoubtedly abusing his position
as a public servant, and it is a legitimate inference that he thereby H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A obtained for himself or at least for the contractors, a pecuniary " .
advantage. The act of abusing his position as a public servant certainly
took place within the Kerala State where the false certificates were
issued, and even if the consequence of obtaining a pecuniary
advantage for himself or for the contractors which consequence makes
that act an offence took place elsewhere, under Section 179, Criminal
B Procedure Code, the special judge for Kerala would have jurisdiction
to try the offence. That the special judge has. jurisdiction to try
Thomson for the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is, in fact, not disputed."

C 19. However, therein the factual matrix was absolutely different. In a
case of this nature, the question of completion of any offence does not arise.

20. In a case involving Section 13(1Xe) of the 1988 Act, wh:it is necessary
is as to whether keeping in view the period in question, commonly known as
check period, the public servant has acquired wealth which is disproportionate
D to his known sources of income. It has nothing to do with individual case
of bribery. It has nothing to do with a series of acts culminated into an
offence. ,.
21. Each Court, where a part of the offence has been committed, would,
therefore, be entitled to try an accused. The 1988 Act does not bar application
E of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If application of the provision
of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred, the fact that

-
the appellant has a pait of his known source of income at Delhi, in our
opinion, would confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi Courts. It is one thing to
say that only the Special Courts will have jurisdiction to try the offence, but
for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to the Special Judge of which place
F shall have the requisite jurisdiction, the situs of the property may or may not
have any relevance. Once the situs of the property is held to have relevance
for the purpose of ascertaining his known source of income and consequent
acquisition of disproportionate assets, ia our opinion, the Special Judge
concerned will also have the requisite jurisdiction to try the case. For the said
G purpose, purport and object for which the 1988 Act has been enacted must
be taken into consideration. The doctrine of purposive construction therefor
must be taken recourse to.

22. With respect, Punchili, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in -
Kamal Dev (supra) was not concerned with such a question and in that view
H of the matter, the following observations made in paragraph 4 may not have
V.K. PURI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.) 817

strict application: A
"4. The commission of the offence of criminal misconduct has nexus
to the period of his office. It is so intimately interlinked that it is the
place of office which would determine the place of commission of his
misconduct. It is through his office alone that one can determine his
known source of income and if his property which is presently in his B
possession or in possession of someone on his behalf, or has at any
time during the period of his office been in his possession or of
someone on his behalf, then it is relatively to be viewed with the
period of his office. In this context, the place of office assumes
importance, for that would determine the jurisdiction in which the C
offence of criminal misconduct would be triable. Thus, in the instant
case, I am of the view that it was the Special Judge at Chandigarh who
had the jurisdiction to try the offence against the petitioner."

23. In any event, as would appear from paragraph 5 of the said judgment
itself, the learned Judge did not intend to determine the said question finally D
as ultimately the doctrine of forum conveniens had been taken recourse to for
holding that although more than one Special Judge may have jurisdiction to
try the offence, the Special Judge at Chandigarh would be the appropriate
authority to have the case tried before it in the interest of justice.

24. For the reasons aforementioned, we, albeit for different reasons, do E
not find merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 351OF2006

25. An application for transfer has been filed wherein one of the principal
questions raised was the absence of territorial jurisdiction of the Special F
Judge, Delhi.

26. The matter is pending for a long time before the Delhi Court.
Charges have already been framed. It may be that many of the prosecution
witnesses do not hail from Delhi. It may further be that Accused No. 3 is a
resident of Indore but as the offence is said to have been committed in the G
year 2002 and chargesheet has also been submitted in that year, we are of the
opinion that the transfer petition at this stage should not be entertained. It
is dismissed accordingly.

B.B.B. Appeal & Transfer Petition dismissed. H