Case: M/S Hcl Infosystem Ltd Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

fresh notification for the court occupied by him, his transfer order is under abeyance till his successor joins. “ 11. The only contention raised by Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant is that public servant having died before framing of the charge, the appellant could not be tried by the Special Judge. He did not challenge any other finding in the impugned order except those relevant to this contention. Shri Singh submits that the case of the appellant-M/s. HCL Infosystem Limited is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in State through Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014) 11 SCC 724 ). Particular reliance was placed on paragraph 46 of the judgment. It was submitted that the trial in a warrant case commenced on framing of the charge which has not yet happened and the public servant had died. The appellant could be tried only during the lifetime of the public servant. Having regard to the fact that the public servant has died before the framing of the charge, this Court upheld the view of the High Court in forwarding the papers of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.12. His main reliance is on paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment which are as follows : “ xxx46. We may now examine Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2011, where the FIR was registered on 2-7-1996 and the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge on 14-9-2001 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the PC Act. Accused 9 and 10 died even before the charge-sheet was sent to the Special Judge. The charge against the sole public servant under the PC Act could also not be framed since he died on 18-2-2005. The Special Judge also could not frame any charge against non-public servants. As already indicated, under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the Special Judge could try non-PC offences only when “trying any case” relating to PC offences. In the instant case, no PC offence has been committed by any of the non-public servants so as to fall under Section 3(1) of the PC Act. Consequently, there was no occasion for the Special Judge to try any case relating to the offences under the PC Act against the appellant. The trying of any case under the PC Act against a public servant or a non-public servant, as already indicated, is a sine qua non for exercising powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act. In the instant case, since no PC offence has been committed by any of the non-public servants and no charges have been framed against the public servant, while he was alive, the Special Judge had no occasion to try any case against any of them under the PC Act, since no charge has been framed prior to the death of the public servant. The jurisdictional fact, as already discussed above, does not exist so far as this appeal is concerned, so as to exercise jurisdiction by the Special Judge to deal with non-PC offences.47. Consequently, we find no error in the view taken by the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai in forwarding the case papers of Special Case No.88 of 2001 in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trying the case in accordance with law. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The competent court to which Special Case No.88 of 2001 is forwarded, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months. Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011 is allowed accordingly.” 13. Learned counsel for the CBI supports the impugned order by submitting that the cognizance had already been taken and the matter should be allowed to proceed before the Special Judge in view of the impugned order of the High Court. 14. While we do find that the observations of this Court in Jitender Kumar Singh (supra) in paragraphs 46 and 47 quoted above support the contention of Shri Singh that the Special Judge, under Section 4(3), could not try an offence other than that specified under Section 3. The public servant was no more and the trial had not commenced. In view of the relied upon judgment in absence of PC Act charge, the appellants may not be liable to be tried before the Special Judge. However, we find two difficulties in accepting the submission of Shri Singh as follows: (i) As observed by the High Court, the charge is yet to be framed and the framing of charge under the PC Act from the material placed on record was not ruled out. Thus, the argument at this stage is pre-mature; and(ii) The Special Judge was authorized not only to deal with the cases under the PC Act as was the position in the case before this Court in Jitender Kumar Singh (supra) but also for other offences. This course was permissible in view of law laid down by this Court in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited (supra). 15. In the present case, the Special Court in question has been constituted not only to deal with the cases of PC Act but also other cases relating to the NRHM scam. Procedure of Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to trial before Special Judge and there is no prejudice to trial that is 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-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 M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited (supra). 16. In view of above distinguishing feature in the present case from the case of Jitender Kumar Singh (supra), we

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. In the present case, the Special Court in question has been constituted not only to deal with the cases of PC Act but also othercases relating to theNRHM scam. Procedure of Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to trial before Special Judge and there is no prejudice to trial that is 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-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