By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 09, 2007 : WHAT would be the territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the question in this appeal.

Appellant was an officer in the Customs Department. Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report against him for acquiring of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income for the check period of 1.06.1988 to 22.02.2002. Contention of the appellant is that, as he had never been posted in Delhi during the period, the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to his case. The Special Judge as also the High Court had rejected the said contention of the appellant and he is before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the ingredients of an offence under the charged sections were

(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.

(iv) Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Once the above ingredients are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof would shift on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not correct.

One of the ingredients of offences, is known sources of income. What is material is that the criminal misconduct had been committed during the period he held office and not the places where he had held offices. The fact that the appellant had bank accounts within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts as also immovable properties is not in dispute. The Customs officer had 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 income.

Further, 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, known sources of income must be ascertained vis-a-vis the possession of property or resources which were disproportionate to the known sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it, on the other. Whereas the burden to prove the first part of the offence is on the prosecution, in the event the same is proved, it would shift to the public servant concerned.

In a case of this kind, what is necessary is as to whether keeping in view the period in question, commonly known as check period, the public servant has acquired wealth which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. It has nothing to do with individual case of bribery. It has nothing to do with a series of acts culminated into an offence.

Each Court, where a part of the offence has been committed, would, therefore, be entitled to try an accused. The PC Act does not bar application of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If application of the provision of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred, the fact that the appellant has a part of his known source of income at Delhi, in, would confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi Courts.

The Supreme Court further observed that

(i) It is one thing to say that only the Special Courts will have jurisdiction to try the offence, but for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to the Special Judge of which place shall have the requisite jurisdiction, the situs of the property may or may not have any relevance.

(ii) Once the situs of the property is held to have relevance for the purpose of ascertaining his known source of income and consequent acquisition of disproportionate assets, the Special Judge concerned will also have the requisite jurisdiction to try the case.

(iii) For the said purpose, purport and object for which the 1988 Act has been enacted must be taken into consideration. The doctrine of purposive construction therefor must be taken recourse to.

Therefore the Supreme Court did not find merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.

(See 2007-TIOL-79-SC-MISC in 'Legal Corner')