- (1.) Leave granted. The common question in these petitions relates to the competence of Special Judge (P.C. Act) Sikkim to try the cases registered against the petitioners herein under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner in S.L.Ps 146-148 of 1998 is the third respondent in S.L.Ps 149-150 of 1998 and the petitioner in the later petitions is the third respondent in S.L.Ps 146-148. The petitioner in the earlier petitions was the Chief Minister of Sikkim and the petitioner in the later petitions was a Member of Indian Administrative Service (Sikkim cadre) working at the relevant time as a Secretary to the Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim.
(2.) Cases were registered against the petitioner by C.B.I. on 26-5-84 and 7-8-84 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. On 7-1-87 the State of Sikkim issued a Notification withdrawing the consent given under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to the C.B.I. for exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of Sikkim for investigations of offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code specified therein as well as offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The said Notification was challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This Court by its judgment dated March 29, 1994 allowed the writ petition and declared that the notification dated 7-1-87 withdrawing the consent given by the Government of Sikkim earlier operated only prospectively and the said withdrawal would not apply to cases which were pending investigation on the date of issuance of the said Notification. The Court observed that the notification dated 7-1-87 did not preclude the C.B.I. from submitting the report in the competent Court under Section 173, Cr. P.C. on the basis of the investigation conducted in RC 5/84-CIU (A) and RC 8/84-CIU (A). The judgment of this Court is reported in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 : (1994 AIR SCW 2190).
(3.) It should be mentioned here that even before the said writ petition was filed, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1947') was repealed and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1988') came into force. The Act of 1947 was extended to the State of Sikkim with effect from 1-9-76. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 had been extended to the State of Sikkim with effect from 15-5-76. The Act of 1988 became applicable to the State of Sikkim from the date it came into force namely 9-9-88. On 13-9-1994 the following Acts were made applicable to the State of Sikkim: 1. Cr. P.C., 1973 2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 On the same day, the State of Sikkim isused a Notification under Section 3 of The Act of 1988 appointing Shri A.P. Subba as Special Judge for trying cases referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3(1) of the said Act for the whole of the State of Sikkim.;