V.K.PURI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

V.K.PURI 
A 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
APRIL 27, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-ss. 13(/)(e) & 5(3)-0ffence by 
public servant of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of 
income-Territorial jurisdiction of Special Court under the Act-Jurisdiction 
in which the offence would be triable-Determination of-Held: Each Court, C 
where a part of the offence has been committed, would be entitled to try the 
accused-The Act does not bar application of s.178, CrPC, hence, the/act 
that the accused has a part of his known source of income at Delhi would 
confer jurisdiction upon the Court at Delhi-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973-ss. 177 & 178-Interpretation of Statutes-Purposive construction. D 
Appellant was an officer in the Customs Department. An FIR was 
registered against him under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that he acquired assets disproportionate to his 
known sources of income for the check period 1988 to 2002. Appellant had 
bank accounts and immovable properties in Delhi. A part of his known sources E 
of income was the rental received by him from his Delhi flat. 
It is contended by the Appellant that the situs of the assets is not relevant 
and that the only fact relevant would be as to where the public servant 
concerned committed acts of misconduct or abused his official position, which 
would be the places where he had held his offices. It is contended that as F 
Appellant had never been posted in Delhi during the aforementioned check 
period, the Special Court at Delhi within meaning of the provisions of the Act 
has no territorial jurisdiction to his case. 
Respondent, however, contended that as by reason of sub-section (3) of 
Section S of the Act, the provisions of Cr PC have been made applicable in G 
relation to the proceedings initiated under the Act, in a case where the offence 
was committed at more than one place, any of the Courts concerned will have 
jurisdiction to try the offence. 
807 
H 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal as also the connected transfer petition, the Court 
~ . 
HELD: 1. The 1988 Act is a Special Act. It over-rides the provisions of 
the general law, viz., Code of Criminal Procedure. But, then when a matter is 
not covered by the 1988 Act, in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of t~e ,. 
1988 Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall clearly be' 
B applicable. [Para 11) (814-C, DJ 
2.1. A distinction exists between a case filed under Sections 13(1)(c) 
and 13(l)(d) of the 1988 Act, on the one hand, and Section 13(1)(e) thereof, 
on the other. [Para 12) (814-D] 
c 
2.2. Ingredients of the offence under Section 13(l)(e) of the 1988 Act 
are: (i) The accused is a public servant; (ii) The nature and extent of the 
pecuniary resources of property found in his possession; (iii) his known 
sources of income, i.e., known to the prosecution and (iv) such resources or 
properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his 
D 
known sources of income. (Para 13] [814-E, F] 
2.3. Once, however, the aforementioned ingredients are established by 
the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that 
the prosecution case is not correct. [Para 14] (814-F, G] 
E 
M Krishna Reddy v. State deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, 
(1992] 4 sec 45, relied on. 
3.1. One of the ingredients of offences is known sources of income. What 
is material therefore is that the criminal misconduct had been committed 
during the period he had held office and not the places where he had held 
F offices. The fact that the appellant had bank accounts within the jurisdiction 
of the Delhi Courts as also immovable properties is not in dispute. Respondent 
in the chargesheet has clearly pointed out that one of his known sources of 
income was the rental received by him from his Delhi flat. The same had been 
given due credit for the purpose of arriving at a prima facie satisfaction that 
the assets possessed of by him are disproportionate to his known source of 
G income. [Para 15] (814-G; 815-A] 
.. 
3.2. From a perusal of the chargesheet, it furthermore appears that the 
appellant is said to have acquired large properties including several bank 
accounts. For the purpose of proving the offence, therefore, on the one hand~ 
H 
known sources of income must be ascertained vis-a-vis the pos

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.