LexC.B.I., A.H.D., PATNA versus BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- - C.B.I., A.H.D., PATNA A v. BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD AND ORS. OCTOBER 5, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000-Section 89-Prevention qf Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 4(2), 13(l)(c) and 13(l)(d)-Case;; under Prevention qf Corruption Act-Trial-Territorial jurisdiction~Detennination of-Cases.filed C in erstwhile State qf Bihar-Cause of action in the cases arose in the territories of State of Jharkhand-B(furcation qf State-Claim for transfer of cases to courts in State of Jharkhand-Held, place of jurisdiction would be detenninative by reference to the place where the main offence was committed and not where the allied acts were committed-If Prevention of Corruption Act stipulates place for trial qf the offence under the Act, the provision of Cr.P. C. would stand displaced to that extent-Hence, the cases would be transferred to the Courts in State of Jharkhand-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 4(2), 179, 180. Code qfCritninal Procedure, 1973/Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 181 ( 4 )14(2)-Distinction between-Discussed. Interpretation qf statutes-Interpretation should achieve the object of the statute and should be made with pragmatism and not pedantically or in a stilted manner. Doctrines : Noscitur a Sociis--Doctrine qf-Explained. Words and Phrases : "Exclusively"-Meaning qf-With reference to Section 89 of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. 64 cases relating to Fodder Scam were registereCI, wherein inquiry was to be held by CBI. Out of them, in 36 cases, charge-sheet was filed by C.B.I. in Special Court created under Prevention of Corruption Act, at 627 D E F. G H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Patna. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar into State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand by virtue of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, C.B.I. filed case before High Court claiming that the 36 cases in which the B place of commission of offence was theState of Jharkhand, stood transferred to the State of Jharkhand, on the midnight of 15.11.2000 i.e. the date when the new State was born. High Court held that since in ".iew of Sections 179 and 180 Cr.P.C., the jurisdiction of the Court at Patna was not completely excluded "by c virtue of certain allied Acts committed at Patna", the proceedings could not be held to be exclusively relating to the Jharkhand State and, therefore, the cases'could remain in the present State of Bihar. ~ I • In appeal to this Court, C.B.I. contended that the jurisdiction of the cases was exclusively in the Courts in the State of Jharkhand and that the D question whether the Courts at Patna also had jqrisdiction had to be determined by reference to Section 4(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and not in view of any provision of Cr. P.C.; and that meaning of the term 'exclusively' in Section 89 of Reorganjsation Act should be understood as "substantially all or for the greater part or principally." E The respondents-accused contended that since the offences were committed by the officials located in Patna the test of exclusivity in Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act cannot absolve the Courts in Patna of their jurisdiction to try the cases; and that the word 'exclusively' in Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act cannot have a meaning other than "to the F exclusion of all others". Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. All the 36 cases involved in the appeals stood transferred to the corresponding courts situated within the territories of Jharkhand G State on the appointed day (i.e. 15.11.2000) by the operation of Section 89 of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. [645-E] 2. The place of jurisdiction would be determinative by reference to the place where the main offence was committed. The fact that other allied acts ~ere committed at different places would be hardly sufficient to H change the venue of the trial to such other places. When it is certain where ~ "- -- -- ..... C.B.I., A.H.D., PATNA v. BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD 629 exactly the offence under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 A was committed it is an unnecessary exercise to ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities, such as conspiracy or preparation, or even the prefatory or incidental acts were done, including the consequences ensued. [644-E; 641-H; 642-A] Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. The Delhi Administration, [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.