Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 21, 2009 Manjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioner has been charged by Special Judge, Ropar, under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in a case registered at the instance of Sadhu Singh alleging that he had made a complaint to Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Makhu, against the village Sarpanch Sh.Sukhchain Singh, regarding his illegal possession of village land. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 [2] having conducted the enquiry had sent the report regarding the illegal possession of brothers of Sarpanch Sukhchain Singh to Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, Chandigarh. Petitioner Manjit Singh was working in the office of the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh as Steno to the Deputy Director. When the complainant had contacted the petitioner in his office and asked about the complaint made by him against the Sarpanch, the petitioner told him that enquiry report against the Sarpanch was lying with him but he did not want to talk about the case in the office as such he should come to his residence at House No. HIG 715, Phase 9, Mohali in the evening on January 2, 2006 where he would make him understand everything. On January 2, 2006, the complainant rang up Manjit Singh where upon he told him to come to his house at about 8/9 p.m. As desired by the petitioner, the complainant met the petitioner on January 2, 29006 at his residence at Mohali. The petitioner told him that if he wanted an action to be taken against Sarpanch Sukhchain Singh, then he would have to give Rs.5000/- as illegal gratification to him. On the request of the complainant, the petitioner agreed to get the Sarpanch suspended after taking Rs.4000/- as illegal gratification and as such made a demand for money. When the complainant made an excuse that he did not have any money with him, the petitioner told him to come alongwith Rs.4000/- on January 3, 2006 to his office and to pay him that amount. It was promised that after receipt of said amount, the petitioner would put up the case against Sarpanch Sukhchain Singh to the Deputy Director. As the complainant did not want to pay the money, he Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 [3] approached the Vigilance people. The trap was laid. Raid was conducted at Chandigarh on January 3, 2006 by the Vigilance Bureau, Phase I Unit, Mohali, Punjab. Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Akshay Bhan has contended that the Court at Ropar do not have any jurisdiction to entertain or try the case as there is no case of demand or recovery within the jurisdiction of Special Judge, Ropar. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts of the present case. The short question which is required to be determined in the present case is that the demand of illegal gratification has been made on January 2, 2006 in the jurisdiction of District Ropar and trap had been laid in Chandigarh whether the Court of Special Judge at Ropar will not be competent to try the accused. Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Akshay Bhan has placed reliance on the judgment of C.B.I., A.H.D. Vs. Braj Bhushan Prasad, 2001 (4) RCR (Crl.) 482 to contend that when an accused is to be tried for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the territorial jurisdiction would be determined under Section 4 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and then this section is not subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Counsel vehemently argued that if the Prevention of Corruption Act has stipulated any place for trial of the offence under that Act the provisions of the Code would stand displaced to that extent in regard to the place of trial. Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 [4] Chapter XIII Cr.P.C. deals with the jurisdiction of criminal Courts in enquires and trials. As per provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C., the ordinary place of enquiry or trial would be within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, as per the provisions of Section 178 Cr.P.C., it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. The provisions of Section 178 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:- “178. Place of inquiry or trial: (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired to or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” Mr. Bhan arguing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the abovesaid provisions will not come into operation for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court as provisions of Section 4 (2) of Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 [5] the Prevention of Corruption Act being a Special Act would have an over- riding effect to determine the place of trial. Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short ‘the Act’) reads as follows:- “Section 4:- Cases triable by special Judges: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only. (2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, be charged at the same trial. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.” A perusal of Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that the offences punishable under the Act shall be tried by a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 (1) of the Act. Section 4 (2) of the Act entitles a Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 [6] Special Judge for the area within which it was committed. A perusal of the allegations against the petitioner, as per the FIR, indicate that the offences of demand and receipt of illegal gratification was committed in the area of Chandigarh as well as in Mohali. The petitioner had demanded illegal gratification in his office at Chandigarh and had called the complainant to his residence in Mohali. As the complainant did not have money to pay to him at Mohali, he had promised to pay the said money to him in his office at Chandigarh. The offence in the present case consists of different transactions which were initiated in Chandigarh and were continued at Mohali and ultimately culminated at Chandigarh where the trap was laid. IN view of said circumstances the place of enquiry would also be governed by the general provisions under Section 178 Cr.P.C. and the offence consisting of different transactions falling in different local areas. The offence could be tried by Special Court having jurisdiction over such local areas. I am of the considered opinion that no doubt when there are special statutory provisions pertaining to a particular subject, it would have an over- riding effect over the general law but where the special law is silent about a particular aspect, in that circumstance the provisions of general law can always supplement the provisions of special statute. I have taken into consideration the ratio of the judgment of Braj Bhushan Prasad’s case (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the ratio of the said judgment in context to the facts and circumstances having arising therein, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the accused was charged with offence Crl. Rev. No. 458 of 2007 [7] under the Act as also with the offence of conspiracy etc. to commit such offence. It was held that the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed would only have the jurisdiction. In the present case, it cannot be said that the Special Judge appointed for the area of Mohali i.e. District Ropar, where the offence had been committed would not be entitled to try the offence. In the present case, no doubt the trap was laid in the jurisdiction of Chandigarh but the offence was initiated at Mohali. It will not be appropriate to exercise any opinion at this stage whether the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act under Section 7 could be bifurcated into two parts i.e. minor offence or major offence for the purpose of determining the venue of trial. In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out for interfering in the order passed by the Special Judge dated January 6, 2007 dismissing the application of the petitioner raising objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Special Judge, Ropar. Dismissed. April 21, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE