LexVIVEK GUPTA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. - VIVEK GUPTA A v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR . SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] B Criminal Law : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 220 and 223-Joint trial of accused persons-Appellant entering into a conspiracy with two C officers of a bank who misused their official position and caused substantial monetary loss to the bank-All three charged under Section 120B read with Section 4201.P.C.-While appellant additionally charged of offence under Section 420 I.P.C. the other two accused were additionally charged under Prevention of Corruption Act-Special Judge charging and trying the appellant together with the other two accused under the provisions of the D Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Tenability of -Held, appellant and his co-accused may be tried by the Special Judge in the same trial- Persons accused of different offence committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together-It would be rather incongruous that on a charge of conspiracy some of the conspirators may E be tried by the Special Judge while others will be tried by the courts under the Code a/Criminal Procedure-Provisions of Code a/Criminal Procedure applicable to trial for offences under the Prevention a/Corruption Ac/- Prevention of Corruption Act,1988-Sections 3, 4, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 22-/ndian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120B and 420. F Appellant transacted business with a bank. He entered into a conspiracy with two officers of the bank to cheat the bank. The two officers of the bank acting in concert with appellant, misused their official position and caused substantial monetary loss to the bank. All the three accused were charged under Section 1208 read with Section G 420 I.P.C. While appellant was additionally charged of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., the two officers of the bank were additionally charged of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Appellant was charged and tried together with the other two accused by the Special Judge under H 1087 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved, appellant approached High Court which held that the appellant can be tried by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act along with the two accused who also stand charged of offences under the Act. Hence the present appeal. B On behalf of appellant, it was contended that the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act has no jurisdiction to try appellant who is not charged of any offence under the said Act; that in view of the express provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the Special Judge could only try offences which are punishable under the Act or C any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or abetment of any of the offences punishable under the Act; that before an accused can be charged and tried by the Special Judge for any offence other than an offence under the Act, the necessary pre-condition is that the said accused must also be charged of an offence under the Act or D conspiracy to commit, attempt to commit or abetment of any offence under the Act; that since the appellant was charged only of offences under Section 420 and Section 1208 read with Section 420 l.P.C., he could not be tried by the Special Judge even with the aid of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. E F On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the appellant being a co-conspirator could be tried along with the co-accused by the Special Judge in the same trial even for the offences not specified under Section 3 of the Act, but forming a part of the same transaction which led to the commission of an offence under the Act. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Special Judge while trying the co-accused of the offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 as also the offence punishable under Section 1208 read with G Section 420 l.P.C. has the jurisdiction to try the appellant also for the offence punishable under Section 1208 read with Section 420 l.P.C. applying the principles incorporated in Section 223 of the Code. The offence under the Act and the offence under the 1.P.C. of which the co-accused have been charged were committed in the course of the H same transaction. Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.