LexM/S. HCL LNFOSYSTEM LTD. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 755 MIS. HCL lNFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTR_AL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Crimina!Appea!No. 751 of2016) AUGUST 09, 2016 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 3(1), 4, 13(J)(d) rlw 13(2) - Jurisdiction of Special Judge appointed u/s. 3(1) to deal with all cases relating to NRHM (National Rural Health Mission) scam under the PC Act - If can continue proceedings against the appellant, not a public servant, named as co-accused with the sole public servant who died before framing of charges, in absence of any independent charge under the PC Act and for offences, though related to the scam but, not under the PC Act - Held: As rightly observed by High Court, charges were yet to be framed and from the material placed on record, framing of charges under the PC Act was not ruled out - Hence, appellants contention that the sole public servant having died before framing of charges, the appellant could not be tried by the Special Judge, pre-mature at this stage - Further, the Special Court was constituted not only to deal with the cases of PC ACt but also other cases relating to the NRHM Scam - No prejudice caused to trial before the Special Judge duly appointed to deal with non-PC cases when the object of doing so was to try connected cases before same Court - Non-PC Act cases could also be allowed to be tried by the Special Judge u/s.26, Cr,P.C - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.26137814071482 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.120(B)/409/420 - Criminal Trial. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the public servant having died before framing of the charge, the appellant could not be tried by the Special Judge. However, there are two difficulties in accepting this submission, viz. (i) As observed by the High Court, the charge was yet to be framed and the framing of charge under the PC Act from the material placed on record could not be ruled out, thus this argument at 755 A B c D E F G H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 8 S.C.R. A this stage is premature, and (ii) The special Judge was authorized not only to deal with the cases under the PC Act but also for other offences. This course was permissible in view of law laid down by this Court in Mis. Essar Telelwldings Limited. (Paras 11, 14)[769-F-G; 771-E-G) B Mis. Essar Teleholdings Limited v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court and Others 2013 (8) SCC 1: 2013 (7) SCR 1 - relied on. 2. In the present case, the Special Court in question was constituted not only to deal with the cases of PC Act but also c other cases relating to the NRHM scam. Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to trial before Special Judge and there is no prejudice to trial taking place before Special Judge duly appointed to deal with non PC cases when the object of doing so was to try connected cases before same court. Undoubtedly, while Special Judge alone could deal with cases under the PC Act, non- D PC Act could also be allowed to be tried by the Special Judge under Section 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no legal bar to do so, as held by this Court in Mis. Essar Teleholdings Limited. [Para 15][771-G-H; 772-A-B] State through Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi · E v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014) 11 SCC 724: 2014 (2) SCR 621 - distinguished. F G H Case Law Reference 2013 (7) SCR 1 relied on · Paras 14, 15 2014 (2) SCR 621 distinguished Paras 14, 16 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 751 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2015 of the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Application UIS/ 482 No. 6623 of2015. WITH Crl. A. No. 752 of2016. C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., P. V. Dinesh, Sanjiv K. Jha, T. P. Sindhu, Rajendra Beniwal, Binesh K., Aarushi Singh, Sibo Sankar Mishra, U. K. Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Advs. for the Appellant. MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 757 INVESTIGATION Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., M. Rambabu, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, A Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. l. Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred against the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 1" May, 2015 and 22nd January, 2016 in B APP No. 6623 of 2015 and Application u/s 482/378/407 No. 3823 of 2014 respectively. 2. The question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the Spe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.