| Headnote |
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988:Purpose of enactment - Held: Although Indian Penal Code provided for punishment for the offence of bribery and corruption even against the public servants, Parliament, in its wisdom, noticed that the Code was not adequate to meet the exigencies of time and a need was felt to introduce a special legislation with a view to eradicate the evil of bribery and corruption from the society - Consequently, the Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted - Penal Code, 1860.s.3(1) - Jurisdiction of Special Judge to proceed against a non-public servant - Held: A Special Judge appointed u/s.3(1) of the PC Act has got jurisdiction to proceed exclusively against a public servant and exclusively against a non-public servant as well, depending upon the nature of the offence referred to in Chapter Ill of the PC Act - Junction of a public servant is not a must for the Special Judge to proceed against a non-public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed by him under Chapter Ill of the PC Act - A conjoint reading of s.3(1) along with ss. 4(1) and (2) would make it amply clear that only the Special Judge has got the jurisdiction to try the offences specified in sub-section (1) of s.3 committed by a public servant or a non-public servant, alone or jointly.s.3(1) - Non-framing of charge against the public servant and private persons, u/s.3(1), while public servant was alive - Held: In such a situation, the Special Judge had no occasion to "try any case" u/s.3(1) of the PC Act, either against a public servant or a private person, so as to try any offence other than an offence specified in s.3, meaning thereby, non-PC offences against private person - Special Judge appointed u/s.3(1) could exercise the powers under sub-section (3) to s.4 to try non-PC offence - Therefore, trying a case by Special Judge u/s.3(1) is a sine qua non for, exercising jurisdiction by the Special Judge for trying an offence other than an offence specified in s.3 - "Trying any case" u/s.3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge to exercise powers to try Non-PC offence .s.4(3) - 'Trying any case' - interpretation of - Held: It means trying any case relating to the offences referred to in ss.3 (1)(a) and (b) of Act for which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Special Judge - A Special Judge, while exercising, exclusive jurisdiction, this, when trying any case relating to offences u/ss.3(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, may also try any offence other than the offence specified in s.3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be charged at the same trial - An accused person, either a public servant or non-public servant, who has been charged for an offence u/s.3(1) of the PC Act, could also be charged for an offence under IPC, in the event of which, the Special Judge has got the jurisdiction to try such offences against the public servant as well as against a non-public servant - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.ss.4(1), 4(3) - Obligation on the part of Special judge to try Non-PC cases - Held: Exclusion of the jurisdiction of ordinary Criminal Court, so far as offences under the PC Act are concerned, has been explicitly expressed u/s.4(1) of the PC Act, which does not find a place, in respect of non-PC offences in sub-section (3) of s.4 of the PC Act - It is not obligatory on the part of a Special Judge to try non-PC offences - The expression "may also try" gives an element of discretion on the part of the Special Judge which will depend upon the facts of each case and the inter-relation between PC offences and non-PC offences - A Special Judge exercising powers under the PC Act is not expected to try non- PC offences totally unconnected with any PC offences u/s.3(1) of the PC Act and in the event of a Special Judge not trying any offence u/s.3(1) of the PC Act, the question of the Special Judge trying non-PC offences does not arise - Trying of a PC offence is a jurisdictional fact to exercise the powers under sub-section (3) of s.4 - Jurisdiction of the Special Judge, as such, has not been divested, but the exercise of jurisdiction, depends upon the jurisdictional fact of trying a PC offence.s.4(3) - .Death of public servant and charges framed against public servant and private person - Held: Once the power has been exercised by the Special Judge u/sub-section (3) of s.4 of the PC Act to proceed against non-PC offences along with PC offences, the mere fact that the sole public servant dies after the exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of s.4, will not divest the jurisdiction of the Special Judge or vitiate the proceedings pending before him - The trying of any case under the PC Act against a public servant or a private person is a sine-qua-non for exercising powers under sub-section (3) of s.4 of PC Act - In the instant case, since no PC offence has been committed by any of the non-public servants and no charges have been framed against the public servant, while he was alive, the Special Judge had no occasion to try any case against any of them under the PC Act, since no charge has been framed prior to the death of the public servant.JURISDICTION of a Court or a Tribunal - Held: Existence of a jurisdictional fact is thus a sine qua non or condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by a Court. |
