ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 29-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 340 
ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. 
V. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI, A.K. SIKRI AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.220 and 223-
C Joint trial- If by administrative order, High Court gives power 
to Special Court to decide all offences pertaining to 2G scam 
·then even a Pen_al Code offence by itself i.e. such offence 
which is not to be tried with Prevention of Corruption Act 
offence so long they pertain to the 2G scam would be within 
D the Special Judge's jurisdiction - Decision to order joint trial 
is discretionary - In the instant case, Special Judge was 
justified in exercising his discretion to order a joint trial on 
the ground that clubbing of the two cases would result in 
wastage of effort already gone into and would lead to failure 
E of justice - Scam --: Prevention of Corruption Act - Penal 
Code, 1860. 
Dismissing the appeal and writ petitions, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. By virtue of of Sections 220 and 223, 
discretion is vested with the Court to order a joint trial. 
This Court having held that the administrative order 
dated 15.3.2011 of the High court was valid, it is clear 
that even a Penal Code offence by itself - that is, such 
G offence which is not to be tried with a Prevention of 
Corruption Act offence - would be within the Special 
Judge's jurisdiction inasmuch as the administrative 
order of the High Court gives power to the Special Court 
to decide all offences pertaining to the 2G Scam. In fact, 
H 
340 
ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
341 
INVESTIGATION • 
once this order is upheld, argument based on Section A 
4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act pales into 
insignificance. This is for the reason that independent 
of Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 
of the notification dated 28.3.2011, the Special Judge has 
been vested with the jurisdiction to undertake the trial B 
of all cases in relation to all matters pertaining to the 2G 
Scam exclusively, which would include Penal Code 
offences by themselves, so long as they pertain to the 
2G Scam. Once the challenge to the administrative order 
dated 15.3.2011, is specifically rejected, the offences C 
arising out of the second supplementary chargesheet, 
being offences under the Penal Code relatable to the 2G 
scam, can be tried separately only by the Special Judge. 
[Paras 20 and 21][353-A; 354-C-F, H; 355-A) 
2. The Special Judge, vide the order dated 2.9.2013, 
has given cogent reasons for not exercising his 
discretion to order a joint trial. He stated that the evidence 
D 
in the main case has almost reached the end and as 
many as 146 witnesses in the main case and 71 
E 
witnesses in the second supplementary chargesheet 
have already been examined, clubbing the two cases 
together would result in the wastage of the effort already 
gone into and would lead to a failure of justice. [Para 22) 
F 
[355-B-C) 
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of 
India (2011) 1 SCC 560; Harjinder Singh v. State 
of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 422; State (through CBI, 
New Delhi) v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014) 11 
SCC 724: 2014 (2) SCR 621 - referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
(2011) 1 sec 560 
referred to. 
Para 5 
G 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A (1985} 1 sec 422 
2014 (2) SCR 621 
referred to. 
Para 20 
referred to. 
Para 21 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
B Appeal No. 1273 of2015 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2013 passed 
by Shri O.P. Saini, Special Judge, CBI (04) (2G Spectrum 
Cases), Patiala house Court, New Delhi in CC No~ 1 (B)/ 2012 
WITH 
W. P. (Crl.) Nos. 36 and 39 of2014 
Harish N. Salve, E. C. Agrawala, Shally Bhasin for the 
D Appellant. 
Pinky Anand, ASG, Anand Grover, Sonia Mathur, Mihir 
Samson, Nikhil Borwankar, Chitralekha Das, Rajiv Ranjan, 
Rishabh Jain, Karan Seth, Balendu Shekhar, B. V. Balaram 
Das, Saket Singh, Sangeeta Singh, Niranjana Singh for the 
E Respondent. 
The Judgment oft.he Court was delivered by 
R. F. NARIMAN 1 J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) 
F 
No.2978 of2014. 
2. These matters arise as a sequel to the judgment 
delivered by this Court on 1. 7.2013 by which three writ petitions 
filed by Essar Teleholdings Limited, Loop Telecom Limited 
G and Vikash Saraf were dismissed by a Division Bench of this 
Court. 
H 
3. The brief facts necessary to appreciate how the 
controversy arose before this Court are as follows
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.