M/S. HCL LNFOSYSTEM LTD. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 755, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 755 
MIS. HCL lNFOSYSTEM LTD. 
v. 
CENTR_AL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
(Crimina!Appea!No. 751 of2016) 
AUGUST 09, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 3(1), 4, 13(J)(d) rlw 
13(2) - Jurisdiction of Special Judge appointed u/s. 3(1) to deal 
with all cases relating to NRHM (National Rural Health Mission) 
scam under the PC Act - If can continue proceedings against the 
appellant, not a public servant, named as co-accused with the sole 
public servant who died before framing of charges, in absence of 
any independent charge under the PC Act and for offences, though 
related to the scam but, not under the PC Act - Held: As rightly 
observed by High Court, charges were yet to be framed and from 
the material placed on record, framing of charges under the PC Act 
was not ruled out - Hence, appellants contention that the sole public 
servant having died before framing of charges, the appellant could 
not be tried by the Special Judge, pre-mature at this stage - Further, 
the Special Court was constituted not only to deal with the cases of 
PC ACt but also other cases relating to the NRHM Scam - No 
prejudice caused to trial before the Special Judge duly appointed 
to deal with non-PC cases when the object of doing so was to try 
connected cases before same Court - Non-PC Act cases could also 
be allowed to be tried by the Special Judge u/s.26, Cr,P.C - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.26137814071482 -
Penal Code, 
1860 -
ss.120(B)/409/420 - Criminal Trial. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The only contention raised by the appellant is 
that the public servant having died before framing of the charge, 
the appellant could not be tried by the Special Judge. However, 
there are two difficulties in accepting this submission, viz. (i) As 
observed by the High Court, the charge was yet to be framed 
and the framing of charge under the PC Act from the material 
placed on record could not be ruled out, thus this argument at 
755 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 
A this stage is premature, and (ii) The special Judge was authorized 
not only to deal with the cases under the PC Act but also for 
other offences. This course was permissible in view of law laid 
down by this Court in Mis. Essar Telelwldings Limited. (Paras 11, 
14)[769-F-G; 771-E-G) 
B 
Mis. Essar Teleholdings Limited v. Registrar General, 
Delhi High Court and Others 2013 (8) SCC 1: 2013 
(7) SCR 1 - relied on. 
2. In the present case, the Special Court in question was 
constituted not only to deal with the cases of PC Act but also 
c other cases relating to the NRHM scam. Code of Criminal 
Procedure is applicable to trial before Special Judge and there is 
no prejudice to trial 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-
D 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 Mis. Essar Teleholdings 
Limited. [Para 15][771-G-H; 772-A-B] 
State through Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi 
· E 
v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014) 11 SCC 724: 2014 (2) 
SCR 621 - distinguished. 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference 
2013 (7) SCR 1 
relied on 
· Paras 14, 15 
2014 (2) SCR 621 
distinguished Paras 14, 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
751 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2015 of the High Court 
ofJudicature at Allahabad in Application UIS/ 482 No. 6623 of2015. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 752 of2016. 
C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., P. V. Dinesh, Sanjiv K. Jha, T. P. Sindhu, 
Rajendra Beniwal, Binesh K., Aarushi Singh, Sibo Sankar Mishra, U. K. 
Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Advs. for the Appellant.
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
757 
INVESTIGATION 
Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., M. Rambabu, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, 
A 
Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. l. Leave granted. These 
appeals have been preferred against the orders of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad dated 1" May, 2015 and 22nd January, 2016 in 
B 
APP No. 6623 of 2015 and Application u/s 482/378/407 No. 3823 of 
2014 respectively. 
2. The question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the 
Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
(the "PC Act") to try a person other than a public servant ifthe public 
C 
servant dies before the commencement of the trial. Further question is 
whether the Special Judge can try a non PC Act case when his 
appointment is to try all cases of the category which covers the present 
case. 
3. The Central Bureau of Investigation (the "CBI") conducted D 
investigation in what is known as "National Rural Health Mission Scam" 
(''NHRM Scam"). According to the said investigation, NRHM funds to 
the tune of Rs. 9,000 crores, which were allocated to the State ofUttar 
Pradesh for the period 2005-2006 by the Ministry of Health & Family 
Welfare, Government of India, were diverted and allegedly E 
misappropriated on a large scale. The CBI enquiry was ordered by the 
Lucknow Bench of the High Court on 15th November, 2011. It also 
came to light that two Chief Medical Officers
were shot dead as a result 
of the said scam. One Deputy Chief Medical Officer was arrested by 
the local police, but he was found dead in jail on 22nd June, 2011. One 
Sunil Verma, who was named as one of the accused, allegedly committed 
F 
suicide on 23'd January, 2012 .. One Mahender Kumar Sharma, who was 
a clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri was 
found murdered on lS'h February, 20'12. The CBI conducted searches 
of more than 150 places across the State and arrested a number of 
accused persons suspected to be involved in the embezzlement ofNHRM G 
funds. 
4. A single court was designated as the trial court to facilitate the 
progress of the trial vide order of the Chief Justice of the High Court 
dated 161h May, 2012. Vide order of the State Government dated 28'h 
August, 2012 the said notification designated the Special Judge, CBI, 
H
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A Ghaziabad for dealing with "NRHM scam matters" for whole of the 
Uttar Pradesh State and was in addition to notification dated I O•h March, 
2011 issued earlier for appointment of Special Judge for trial ofoffences 
under Section 3(1) of the PC Act. 
B 
5. The two notifications are as follows : 
(I) 
" NOTIFICATION 
Miscellaneous 
No. U .0.-24/6-P-9-201l-I67G/09TC-Nyaya-2 
Lucknow : dated March I 0, 2011 
In exercise of the powers under sub-section (I) of section 3 
c and sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) read with section 21 of the General Clauses 
Act, 1897 (Act no.X of 1897) and in supersession ofall othernotifications 
issued in this behalf, the Governor is pleased to appoint from the date of 
his taking overcharge the Additional DistrictJudge mentioned in Column 
2 of the Scheduled below, as Special Judge for the areas mentioned in 
D Column 4 for trial for such offences specified in sub-section (I) of section 
3 of the aforesaid Act no.49 of 1988 in which hereinafter charge sheet 
are filed in his court by Special Police Establishment of the Government. 
oflndia and to direct that such other cases arising within the said areas, 
in which charge sheets have already been filed before any other Special 
E Judge appointed under the said Act and also such other cases arising 
within the said area relating to the said Special Police Establishment 
which are pending
before such Special Judge, shall also be tried and 
·disposed off by him and his court shall be designated as specified in 
column-3 of said Schedule with headquarters at Ghaziabad. 
F 
SCHEDULE 
. 
Sl. 
Name of the Judge 
Name of 
Areas of 
No. 
the Coun 
Jurisdiction 
(District) 
. 1 
2 
3 
4 
G 
1 
Shri Sh yam Lal-II, Special 
G.B.Nagar, 
Additional District 
Coun,Anti Mecrut,Aligarh. 
Corruption, Rampur, l\1ainpuri, 
and 
Sessions CBI, 
Firozabad. 
Judge, Ghaziabad 
Ghazi a bad 
H
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
759 
INVESTIGATION [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
r. As o 
Singh-I\', 
Judge 
Anti 
Corruption C.B.I., 
Ghaziabad 
3 
Sn M.S. Wa 
wa, 
Adtl.itional District 
and 
Sessions 
Judge, 
Mu.zaffa.magar 
I.Zia 
• 
Moradabad, 
Bulandshahar, 
Bijnor, Hathras 
S aranpW', 
Agi:a, 
Mu.zaffamagar, 
J.P. Nagar, Etah, 
Baghpat, 
Mathura. 
By order 
Deepak Kumar 
Secretary 
(II) 
GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH 
HOME (POLICE) SECTION-9 
No. U.0.49/Six-P~l2-l 67 G/09 T.C. Justice-2 
Lucknow, Dated: 281h August; 2012 
Exercising the powers conferred under section 2 of General 
Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No.IO of 1897) read with sub-
section ( 1) of sectiou 73 and sub-section (2) of section 4 of 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No.49 of 1988) 
and besides Notification No.U.0.24/Six-P-9-2011-1670/09 
T.C. - Justice-2, dated I Q•h March, 2011 issued for this 
purpose, the Governor do hereby appoint Sri Shyam Lal-
Second. Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, 
Ghaziabad, for disposing of National Rural Health 
Mission (NRHM) Scam matters of whole of Uttar 
Pradesh, besides the matters mentioned in previous 
Notification, with immediate effect. 
By the order 
Kamal Saxena 
Secretary " (emphasis 
added) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
760 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
6. The CBI filed several charge sheets, including a charge sheet 
in respect of offences not covered by the PC Act in the case of Dr. Vijai 
Tripathi (appellant in SLP (Cr!.) No.1418of2016) and others. Since the 
Special Judge declined to entertain the said charge sheet, on application 
of the CBI, the High Court held that the Special Judge was to deal with 
"all cases relating to the scam", even though the offences were not 
under the PC Act.1 
7. Vide notification dated 29th May, 2014 in place ofShri Shyam 
Lal-II, Shri Atul Kumar Gupta was posted for CBI Court, Ghaziabad. 
He was to look after all cases of NRHM as notified earlier, as the 
notification dated 28th August, 2012 was not rescinded, even though. 
The notification dated 29th May, 2014 was in supersession of all other 
notifications. This aspect, as noted in the impugned judgment of the 
High Court, was clarified on the administrative side of the High Court. 
Cases of the appellants are being dealt with by the said court. Charge is 
yet to be framed. 
8. The appellant in SLP (Cr!.) No.4338 of2015 is named as co-
accused inter alia for offence of conspiracy along with a public servant 
who was charged under the PC Act. It approached the High Court 
with the plea oflack of jurisdiction of the Special Judge to deal with the 
case against it after the death of the public servant. The High Court 
repelled the said contention and dismissed the petition.
The High Court 
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mis. Essar Telelwltlings 
Limited Vs. Registrar General, De/Iii Higli Court and Otlters2 
wherein it was held that the Special Judge having been appointed to deal 
with "all 2G scam" cases, could also deal with cases involving other 
offences under the PC Act. This is clear from the following discussion 
in the judgment: 
xxx 
xxx 
11. Subsequently, the CBI filed second supplementary 
G 
charge sheet on 12.12.2011 against the Petitioner(s) and 
other accused persons for the alleged commission of 
offences under Section 420/ 120-8 Indian Penal Code. No 
t Order dated 23.09.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application U/s. 482 No. 33050 of 
2013 
H 
'2013 (8) sec 1
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) 
offences under the PC Act have been alleged against the 
Petitioner(s) and other accused persons arraigned in the 
second supplementary charge sheet. Based on the same, 
the learned Special Judge by impugned order dated 
21.12.2011 was pleased to take cognizance of the second 
supplementary charge sheet dated 12.12.2011 and the 
Petitioner(s) and others were summoned. 
12. Accordi11g to the Petitioner(s), the CBI in its charge 
sheet dated 12.12.2011 admits thatthe charge sheet is being 
filed " regarding a separate offence" under Section 420/ 
120-B Indian Penal Code. In paragraphs 73 and 74 of the 
said charge sheet whilst admitting that the offences alleged 
in the charge sheet are triable by a Magistrate, the CBI 
relying on the notification dated 28.3.2011 requested the 
Special Judge to take cognizance of the matter. Paragraphs 
73 and 74 of the cl_iarge sheet read as under: 
73. This final report under Section 173(8) Code of 
Criminal Procedure is being filed regarding a separate 
offence which came to notice during investigation of 
the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 (2G Spectrum 
Case), which is pending before Hon'ble Special Judge 
(2G Spectrum Cases), Patiala House Courts, New 
Delhi and a final report dated 02.04.2011 and 
supplementary final report dated 25.04.2011 were 
earlier filed in the same FIR. 
74. In terms of the Notification No. 6/05/2011-Judl./ 
363-367 dated 28.03.2011
issued by Govt. ofNCT of 
Delhi this Hon'ble Court has been designated to 
undertake the trial of cases in relation to all. matters 
pertaining to 2G Scam exclusively in pursuance of the 
orders of the Supreme Court, although offences alleged 
to have been committed by accused persons sent up 
for trial are triable by the Magistrate of first class. It 
is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the aforesaid 
offences may be taken or the final report may be 
endorsed to any other appropriate court as deemed fit 
and thereafter process may be issued to the accused 
761 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
762 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 8 S.C.R. 
persons for their appearance and to face the trial as 
per Law. 
13. The learned Special Judge, thereafter, took cognizance 
vide impugned order dated 21.12.2011. The relevant portion 
of the said impugned order reads as under: 
"2. Ld. Spl. PP further submits that the accused have 
been charged with the commission ofoffence, which 
are triable, by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. 
It is further submitted that this second supplementary 
charge sheet also arises from the aforesaid RC bearing 
No. DAI2009A0045/CBI/ACB/ND, titled as CBI v. 
A. Raja and Ors., arose and is pending trial. He further 
submits that since this case also arises from the same 
FIR, it is to be tried by this Court alone. He has further 
invited my attention to an order dated 15.03.2011, 
passed by the Hon'ble High Court, whereby the 
undersigned was nominated as Special Judge by the 
Hon'ble High Court to exclusively try cases of 20 
Scam. 
3. Accordingly, the trial of this second supplementary 
charge sheet shal 1 be held in this Court. A copy of the 
order dated I 5 .03.2011 be placed on the file." 
14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner(s) assailed the 
impugned Administrative Order passed by the Delhi High 
Court dated I 5.3.2011 and the Notification dated 28.3.2011 
issued by the Government ofNCT Delhi on the following 
,grounds: 
14.1 The impugned notification travels beyond the 
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The 
Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that offences 
under the Indian Penal Code ought to be tried as per 
its provisions. 
14.2 It has been held by this Hon'ble Court in the case of 
CBI v. Keshub Mahindra that: (SCC p. 219, para 11) 
"No decision by any court, this Court not 
excluded, can be read in a manner as to nullify
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
the express provisions of an Act or the Code ... " 
(emphasis in original) 
Thus, the Administrative order and Notification are contrary 
to the well-settled provisions of law and ought to be set 
aside in so far as they confer jurisdiction on a Special Judge 
to take cognizance and hold trial of matters not pertaining 
to PC Act offences. 
14.3 lfthe offence of Section 420 Indian Penal Code, which 
ought to be tried by a Magistrate, is to be tried by a Court 
of Sessions, a variety of valuable rights of the Petitioner 
would be jeopardised. This would be contrary to the decision 
of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court 
in the case of A.R. Antu lay v. R.S. Nayak, where'in it was 
acknowledged that the right to appeal is a valuable right 
and the loss of such a right is violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution of India. 
15.4 The Second Supplementary charge-sheet which makes 
out offences against the present accused arises out of FIR 
No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 registereC: b•; the CBI on 
21.10.2009, out of which the earlier charge-sheet& have 
been filed, and cognizance taken by the Special Court. An 
anomalous situation would be created if various accused 
charged with offences arising out of the same FIR were to 
be tried by different courts on the flimsy ground that some 
of them are only charged of offences arising out of the 
Indian Penal Code and not the special
statutes under which 
other charges are laid. 
15.5 Higher courts can try an offence in view of Section 26 
of Code of Criminal Procedure and no prejudice should be 
caused ifthe case is tried by a Special Judge. By virtue of 
Administrative Order passed by the Delhi High court and 
Notification issued by the Government ofNCT, Delhi, the 
learned Special Judge is not divested ofhisjurisdiction which 
he otherwise possesses under Section 26 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure to try offence under Indian Penal Code. 
The Section reads as follows: 
763 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
764 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
"26. Courts by which offences are triable.- Subject to 
the other provisions of this Code,-
( a) Any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 
1860) may be tried by-
(i) The High Court, or 
(ii) The Court of Session, or 
(iii) Any other court by which such offence is shown 
in the First Schedule to be triable; 
(b) Any offence under any other law shall, when any 
Court is mentioned in this behalfin such law, be tried 
by such Court and when no court is so mentioned, 
may be tried by-
(i) The High Court, or 
(ii) Any other court by which such offence is shown 
in the First Schedule to be triable." 
16. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel for the CPIL, 
submitted that a Special Judge has the power to try offences 
under the Indian Penal Code and no challenge can be made 
against th is power. It was further submitted that. in view of 
the order passed by this Court in 2G Scam case, it is not 
open to the Petitioners to approach any other Court to 
commence the trial. 
xxx 
xxx 
24. From the aforesaid second charge-sheet it is clear that 
the offence alleged to have been committed by the 
Petitioners in the course of2G Scam Cases. For the said 
reason they have been made accused in the 2G Scam Case. 
25. Admittedly, ·the co-accused of 2G Scam case charged 
under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can 
be tried only by the Special Judge. The Petitioners are co-
accused in the said 2G Scam case.
In this background 
Section 220 of Code of Criminal Procedure will apply and 
the Petitioners though accused of different offences i.e. 
under Section 420/ 120-B Indian Penal Code;which alleged 
to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
transactions, under Section 223 of Code of Criminal 
Procedure they may be charged and can be tried together 
with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases. 
30. On the question of validity of the Notification dated 
28th March, 2011 issued by the NCT of Delhi and 
Administrative Order dated 15th March, 2011 passed by 
the Delhi High Court, we hold as follows: 
30.1. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the PC Actthe 
State Govemment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, 
appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for 
such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as 
may be specified in the notification to try any offence 
punishable under the PC Act. In the present case, as 
admittedly, co-accused have been charged under the 
provisions of the PC Act, and such offence punishable under 
the PC Act, the NCT of Delhi is well within its jurisdiction 
to issue Notification(s) appointing Special Judge(s) to try 
the 2G Scam case(s). 
30.2. Article 233 and 234 of the Constitution are attracted 
in cases where appointments of persons to be Special Judges 
or their postings to a particular Special Court are involved. 
The control of High Court is comprehensive, exclusive and 
effective and it is to subserve a basic feature of the 
Constitution i.e., independence of judiciary. [See High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and 
High Court of Orissa v.
Sisir Kanta Satapathy. The power 
to appoint or promote or post a District Judge of a State is 
vested with the Governor of the State under Article 233 of 
the Constitution which can be exercised only in consultation 
with the High Court. Therefore, it is well within the 
jurisdiction of the High Court to nominate officer(s) of the 
rank of the District Judge for appointment and posting as 
Special Judge(s) under Sub-section(!) of Section 3 of the 
PC Act. 
30.3. In the present case, the Petitioners have not challenged 
the nomination made by the High Court of Delhi to the NCT 
of Delhi. They have challenged the letter dated 15th March, 
765 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
766 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
2011 written by the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, 
New Delhi to the District Judge-I-cum-Sessions Judge, Tis 
Hazari Courts, Delhi and the District Judge-IV-cum-Addi. 
Sessions Judge, I/C, New Delhi District, Patiala House 
Courts, New Delhi whereby the High Cou1t intimated the 
officers about nomination of Mr. O.P. Saini, an officer of 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service for his appointment as Special 
Judge for 2G Scam Cases. 
31. In the present case there is nothing on the record to 
suggest that the Petitioners will not get fair trial and may 
face miscarriage of justice. In absence of any such threat 
& miscarriage of justice, no interference is called for against 
the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against 
the Petitioners. 
9. In the impugned judgment, the High Court dealing with the 
powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court to permit non-PC Act 
D cases also being dealt with by the Special Judge observed: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
" The powers of the Chief Justice to do so are 
unquestionable keeping in view the provisions of Rule 4(A) 
of Chapter Ill of the Allahabad High Court Rules which 
includes the powers ofthe Chief Justice in matters of Mid-
term posting and transfers and all residuary matters not 
allotted to any Committee or Administrative Judges. This 
being the legal position and there being no indication of any 
prejudice or failure ofj ustice, the notification dated 29 .5.2014 
read
with the notification dated 28.8.2012/ 1.9.2012 and 
the order of the Chief Justice mentioned hereinabove dated 
13 .2.2014 clearly continues the authority of Sri Atul Kumar 
Gupta to exercise powers exclusively over NRHM cases 
at Ghaziabad. From the administrative file ofthe High Court 
relating to the issuance of such notifications it also appears 
that steps have been initiated and the Government has 
already been communicated with the approval ofHon'ble 
the Chief Justice, that the said omission in the notifications 
dated 29.5.2014 specifically aboutNRHM cases be rectified. 
There is, therefore, a substantial compliance of procedure · 
in relation to the conferment of the posting and jurisdiction 
of Sri Atul Kumar Gupta as successor in.office of Sri Shyam
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
767 
INVESTIGATION [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
r-~· 
Lal-II who was already notified to exclusively try NRHM 
A 
cases. In the light of the above, a ministerial omission either 
by the registry of the High Court or by the State Government 
will not dissolve the conferment of authority on the 
successor in office. 
xxx 
B 
xxx 
In my considered opinion as well, the aforesaid approach 
of getting the scam tried in one particular court does not 
suffer from any administrative or judicial infirmity and rather 
the same would advance the cause of justice with the entire 
scam being looked into by one particular court instead of a 
variety of cou1ts spread over differently as it would result 
in a likelihood of conflict of appreciation of evidence and 
obviously might result in a conflict of opinion. The nature 
of the offences being tried simultaneously by one court 
relate to the diversion, misappropriation and misutilization 
of the funds of the National Rural Health Mission that 
according to the charge sheet and the FIRs as well as the 
evidence collected indicate a concerted effort through a 
deep-routed conspiracy to siphon off the funds of the 
NRHM scam. In such a situation it would not be 
inappropriate to invoke the principle "extraordinary situations 
require extra ordinary remedies" for retaining the jurisdiction 
with the learned Special Judge in the facts of the present 
case. " 
I 0. As already stated, the High Court held
that the Special Judge 
could continue proceedings against the appellants even after the death 
of public servant and even if there was no charge under the PC Act. 
The High Court duly considered the effect of death of the sole public 
servant. The contention raised by the appellant in the first case was that 
the charges against it were under Section 1208 read with Sections 409 
and 420 !PC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC 
Act. There is no independent PC Act charge against it. Thus, only for 
non PC Act charges, proceedings could not continue before the Special 
Judge. On this aspect, it was observed that the charge could be amended 
and challenge was pre-mature apart from the fact the Special Judge 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A was competent to deal with non PC Act cases relating to NRHM scam. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The relevant observations in this regard are : 
" There is one thing which deserves mention at this very 
stage is that the possibility of amendment in the charges 
and addition thereto keeping in view the nature of the 
allegations cannot be ruled out in future. This, therefore, 
would be a premature stage to presume that no other 
offence can be tried by the Special Court. The offences in 
relation to a non-government servant which connect him 
with the conspiracy of misappropriation of public funds with 
the aid of a government servant, would not vanish merely 
because the government servant has died. This would 
clearly depend upon the evidence and the facts of the case 
that would ultimately determine the framing of the charge 
and its consequential trial. Not only this, the Court has 
ample powers to add charges even during the course of the 
trial. 
From a perusal of the FIR, charge sheet and cognizance 
order, it may not be said at this stage that no offence under 
the Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed by 
the applicant. The cognizance is taken of the offence and 
not of the person. The charges are framed in relation to 
the offence committed which are tried. The question is of 
the link of a non-government servant to such an offence 
which may be relatable to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988. In the instant case
the material on record does indicate 
prima facie such connection whereas in the case of State 
Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh (supra) which has been relied 
upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, the Apex 
Court came to a conclusion that there was no offence under 
the Prevention of Corruption Act for being tried as against 
the non-government servants involved therein that arose 
out of the Bombay case as discussed in the said judgment. 
In the circumstances, it would be absolutely premature to 
presume on the facts of the present case of there being no 
evidence or linkage as suggested by the learned counsel 
for the petitioner when prima facie a charge sheet and the 
cognizance order do disclose such links.
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
769 
INVESTIGATION [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
xxx 
A 
xxx 
Applying the aforesaid principles on the facts of the present 
case, it is clear that there are clear allegations and also 
evidence prima facie collected to indicate conspiracy that 
connect the acts and omissions of Late Sri G.K. Batra, the 
government servant, with the applicant-company and its 
officials and agents who got themselves introduced in the 
manner indicated in the charge sheet along with the active 
aid of Late Sri G.K. Batra. Consequently, all arguments 
that have been advanced by Sri Chaturvedi on the strength 
of the judgment in the case of State Vs. Jitender Kumar 
Singh (supra) do not come to his aid as the facts of the 
present case are not identical except for the similarity of 
the death of the government servant. Consequently, the 
second argument also does not hold water. 
In view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove, the order 
impugned dated 28.2.2015 is upheld and the proceedings 
before Sri Atul Kumar Gupta are treated to be well within 
his jurisdiction in all NRHM cases. In order to remove any 
doubt in this regard it is further directed that SriAtul Kumar 
Gupta would continue to have jurisdiction over such cases 
till his successor joins on the said post. It may also be put 
on record that according to the annual list of transfer and 
posting Sri Atul Kumar Gupta is under orders of transfer, 
but on account of no 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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
did not challenge any other finding in the impugned order except those 
G 
relevant to this contention. Shri Singh submits that the case of the 
appellant-Mis. HCL Infosystem Limited is fully covered by the judgment 
of this Court in State tllrougll Central Bureau of Investigation, New 
De/Iii Vs. Jitender Kumar Singf1J. Particular reliance was placed on 
'(2014) 11 sec 724 
H
770 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 
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 
end the pub I ic 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 : 
" xxx 
46. We may now examine Criminal Appeal No.161 of2011, 
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
MIS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
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 of2001 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 of201 I 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. 
771 
A 
B 
c 
14. While we do find that the observations of this Court in Jitender 
D 
Kumar Singlt (supra) in paragraphs 46 and 47 quoted above support 
the contention ofShri 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
ofShri 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 
E 
F 
view of law laid down by this Court in Mis. Essar 
G 
Te/e/10/dillgs Limited (supra). 
IS. In the present case, the Special Court in question has been 
constituted not only to deal with the cases of PC Act hut also other 
cases relating to the NRHM scam. Procedure of Code of Criminal 
H
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 
c 
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 Mis. Essar Te/e/10/dings Limited (supra). 
16. In view of above distinguishing feature in the present case 
from the case of Jitender Kumar Singh (supra), we do not find any 
merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. 
Divya Pandey 
Appeals dismissed.