LexESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1 ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. (Writ Petition (C) No. 57 of 2012 etc.) JULY 1, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI . MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: s.3(1) read with s.4(3) and s.22 - 2G Spectrum case - Nomination of Special Judge - Jurisdiction of Special Court to take cognizance of offences punishable ulss 4201128 /PC A B c as per second supplementary charge-sheet filed by CBI in the FIR for offences punishable under PC Act - Held: Apart from D an offence punishable under the Act, any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified thereunder can also be tried by a Special Judge - From second charge-sheet it is clear that petitioners are co-accused in 2G Scam case - Thus, s. 220, Cr.P. C. will apply and the petitioners though accused of E different offences i.e. u/s 4201120-B /PC alleged to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, u/s 223, Cr. P. C. they may be charged and can be tried together with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases. F s. 3(1) - 2G Spectrum case - Nomination of Special Judge - Held: Under sub-s. (1) of s.3 of the PC Act, State Government may, by, notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary and specified in the notification to try any offence punishable G under the Act - In the instant case, as co-accused have been charged under the provisions of the PC Act, NCT of Delhi is well within its jurisdiclion to issue Notification(s) appointing Special Judge(s) to try 2G Scam case(s) - In viewq_tArts. 233 1 H · 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A and 234, it is well within the jurisdiction of High Court to nominate officer(s) of the rank of District Judge for appointment and posting as Special Judge(s) under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 233 and 234. 8 Pursuant to the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the Supreme Court, in C.A. No. 1066 of 2010 and consequent upon the Delhi High Court nominating an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service as Special Judge to try cases of 2 G Scam, the Government of NCT, Delhi in exercise of its power uls 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, C 1988, issued Notification dated 28.3.2011 designating the officer concerned as Special Judge to undertake the trial of cases in relation to all matters pertaining to 2G Spectrum exclusively. The Special Judge by order dated 21.12.2011 took cognizance of the second supplementary D charge-sheet·dated 12.12.2011 filed by CBI against the petitioners and other accused persons for alleged commission of offences punishable u/ss 420/120-B IPC in FIR dated 21.10.2009 and directed summons to issue to petitioners and other accused persons. The petitioners E filed the instant writ petition challenging the administrative order of the Delhi High Court on 15.3.2011 and the Notification dated 28.3.2011 issued by the Government of NCT, Delhi. F Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly mandates that apart from an offence punishable under the PC Act, any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of G any of the offences specified thereunder can also be tried by a Special Judge. Sub-s. (3) of s. 4 specifies that a Special Judge, when trying any case, can also try any offence, other than an offence specified in s.3, with which the accused may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the H ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. v. REGR. GEN., DELHI 3 HIGH COURT same trial. In view of s. 22 of PC Act, provisions of the A Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under the PC Act, subject to certain modifications. [para 17-18] [14-B- C; 15-D-E] 1.2 The second supplementary charge-sheet dated 12.12.2011 was filed in the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 B dated 21.10.2009. From the said second charge-sheet it is clear. that the offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the course of 2G Scam Cases and, as such, they have been made accused in the 2G Scam Case. [para 21] (17-D; 20-B] C 1.3 The co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by the Special Judge. The Special Judge alone can take cognizance of the offence specified in s. 3(1) of 0 PC Act and conspiracy in re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.