STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI Vs. JITENDER KUMAR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
February 05,2014
State Through Cbi New Delhi
Appellant
VERSUS
Jitender Kumar Singh
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ARTONGEN KEMI OCHFORVALTNING AB V. STATE THROUGH CBI [REFERRED TO]RATILAL BHANJI MITHANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
AJAY AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK GUPTA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
CARONA LTD VS. PARVATHY SWAMINATHAN AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SANKLA VS. VIKRAM CEMENT [REFERRED TO]
SANICHAR SAHNI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ARIF ALIAS ASHFAQ VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SRI ABRAHAM T.J. S/O LATE SRI JOSEPH T.A. VS. SRI B.S. YEDIYURAPPA S/O LATE SRI SIDDALINGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-3] [REFERRED TO]SAYYED SOHEL TORVI VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1065] [REFERRED TO]
HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
S.S. KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. THE STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. N. CHIDANANDA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-246] [REFERRED TO]
A. REVANTH REDDY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA THROUGH ACB, CIU,HYDERABAD [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SALEM VS. NIRMALA ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK ANAND VS. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-119] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-180] [REFERRED TO]
NATWAR RATERIA VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-255] [REFERRED TO]
K.P. JAMES AND ORS. VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-117] [REFERRED TO]
BM PAUL CHOUDHURY AND COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GAU)-2019-2-73] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHANA L. RAO VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2016-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
JOHNSON ALEXANDER VS. STATE BY C.B.I., A.C.B. [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-139] [REFERRED TO]
FERTICO MARKETING VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-205] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWARUP RAJWADE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-214] [REFERRED TO]
R. VIVEKANANDAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-278] [REFERRED TO]
ABRAHAM T. J. VS. B. S. YEDIYURAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1500] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. SMT. V.M.SARASWATHY [LAWS(KAR)-2021-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
KAVIN VIVEK VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA W/O LATE MADHU VS. SREEKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
MEHUL CHOKSI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-391] [REFERRED TO]
SAM P.PHILIP VS. GAURAV GUPTHA COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-830] [REFERRED TO]
D.SAMPATH VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLLICE. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-184] [REFERRED]
ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-136] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SHARMA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB KOLKATA AND ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
SANTY GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
JOSSY VARGHESE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
AMBUJ HOTELS & REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-276] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP DESHWAL ALIAS SANJU VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
MODARAM VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-1-188] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)We are, in these cases, concerned with the interpretation of various
sections that appear in Chapter II read with Chapter III of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act"), especially Sections 3, 4,
5 and other related provisions dealing with offences and penalties
appearing in Chapter III of the PC Act.
(2.)We are, in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008, concerned with the question whether the Special Judge, after framing charges against a Public Servant under 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) falling under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and against private persons for offences under Sections 120- B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can go ahead with the trial of the case against the private persons for non-PC offences, even after the death of the sole public servant. In other words, the question is whether, on the death of the sole public servant, the Special Judge will cease to have jurisdiction to continue with the trial against the private persons for non-PC offences. Further question raised is that, assuming that the Special Judge has jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act to proceed against the private persons, is the Special Judge duty bound to try any non- PC offence, other than the offences specified under Section 3 of the PC Act against the accused persons charged at the same trial.
(3.)In Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011, we are concerned with the question as to whether the Special Judge has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to try non-PC offences against private persons when no charges have been framed against public servants for trying a case for offences under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, since they died before framing of charges under the PC Act or IPC.
(2.)We are, in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008, concerned with the question whether the Special Judge, after framing charges against a Public Servant under 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) falling under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and against private persons for offences under Sections 120- B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can go ahead with the trial of the case against the private persons for non-PC offences, even after the death of the sole public servant. In other words, the question is whether, on the death of the sole public servant, the Special Judge will cease to have jurisdiction to continue with the trial against the private persons for non-PC offences. Further question raised is that, assuming that the Special Judge has jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act to proceed against the private persons, is the Special Judge duty bound to try any non- PC offence, other than the offences specified under Section 3 of the PC Act against the accused persons charged at the same trial.
(3.)In Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011, we are concerned with the question as to whether the Special Judge has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to try non-PC offences against private persons when no charges have been framed against public servants for trying a case for offences under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, since they died before framing of charges under the PC Act or IPC.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.