SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 SCR 1 and 234, It Is Well Within the Jurisdiction of High Court to Nominate Officer(S)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. A A and 234, it is well within the jurisdiction of High Court to v. nominate officer(s) of the rank of District Judge for REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. appointment and posting as Special Judge(s) under sub-s. (Writ Petition (C) No. 57 of 2012 etc.) (1) of s. 3 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 233 and 234. JULY 1, 2013. Pursuant to the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the B B [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI Supreme Court, in C.A. No. 1066 of 2010 and consequent MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] upon the Delhi High Court nominating an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service as Special Judge to try cases of 2 G Scam, the Government of NCT, Delhi in exercise of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: its power u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, C C s.3(1) read with s.4(3) and s.22 - 2G Spectrum case - 1988, issued Notification dated 28.3.2011 designating the Nomination of Special Judge - Jurisdiction of Special Court officer concerned as Special Judge to undertake the trial to take cognizance of offences punishable u/ss 420/12B IPC of cases in relation to all matters pertaining to 2G as per second supplementary charge-sheet filed by CBI in the Spectrum exclusively. The Special Judge by order dated FIR for offences punishable under PC Act - Held: Apart from 21.12.2011 took cognizance of the second supplementary D D an offence punishable under the Act, any conspiracy to charge-sheet dated 12.12.2011 filed by CBI against the commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of petitioners and other accused persons for alleged the offences specified thereunder can also be tried by a commission of offences punishable u/ss 420/120-B IPC Special Judge - From second charge-sheet it is clear that in FIR dated 21.10.2009 and directed summons to issue petitioners are co-accused in 2G Scam case - Thus, s. to petitioners and other accused persons. The petitioners 220,Cr.P.C. will apply and the petitioners though accused of E E filed the instant writ petition challenging the different offences i.e. u/s 420/120-B IPC alleged to have been administrative order of the Delhi High Court on 15.3.2011 committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, u/s 223, and the Notification dated 28.3.2011 issued by the Cr. P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together with Government of NCT, Delhi. the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases. F F Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court s. 3(1) - 2G Spectrum case - Nomination of Special HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Prevention Judge - Held: Under sub-s. (1) of s.3 of the PC Act, State of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly mandates that apart from Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, an offence punishable under the PC Act, any conspiracy appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary and to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of specified in the notification to try any offence punishable G G any of the offences specified thereunder can also be tried under the Act - In the instant case, as co-accused have been by a Special Judge. Sub-s. (3) of s. 4 specifies that a charged under the provisions of the PC Act, NCT of Delhi is Special Judge, when trying any case, can also try any well within its jurisdiction to issue Notification(s) appointing offence, other than an offence specified in s.3, with which Special Judge(s) to try 2G Scam case(s) - In view of Arts. 233 the accused may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the 1 H H ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. v. REGR. GEN., DELHI 3 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. HIGH COURT same trial. In view of s. 22 of PC Act, provisions of the A A (i) Under sub-s. (1) of s.3 of the PC Act, the State Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under the PC Government may, by notification in the Official Act, subject to certain modifications. [para 17-18] [14-B- Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges as may be C; 15-D-E] necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification 1.2 The second supplementary charge-sheet dated to try any offence punishable under the PC Act. In 12.12.2011 was filed in the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 B B the instant case, as the co-accused have been dated 21.10.2009. From the said second charge-sheet it charged with offences punishable under the PC Act, is clear that the offences are alleged to have been the NCT of Delhi is well within its jurisdiction to issue committed by the petitioners in the course of 2G Scam Notification(s) appointing Special Judge(s) to try the Cases and, as such, they have been made accused in the 2G Scam case(s); 2G Scam Case. [para 21] [17-D; 20-B] C C (ii) Arts. 233 and 234 of the Constitution are attracted 1.3 The co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under in cases where appointments of persons to be the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be Special Judges or their postings to a particular tried only by the Special Judge. The Special Judge alone Special Court are involved. The power to appoint or can take cognizance of the offence specified in s. 3(1) of D D promote or post a District Judge of a State is vested PC Act and conspiracy in relation thereto. A magistrate with the Governor of the State under Art. 233, which cannot take cognizance of offence as specified in s. 3(1) can be exercised only in consultation with the High of the PC Act. The petitioners are co-accused in the said Court. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of 2G Scam case. In this background s. 220,Cr.P.C. will the High Court to nominate officer(s) of the rank of apply and the petitioners though accused of different E E the District Judge for appointment and posting as offences, i.e., u/s 420/120-B IPC, alleged to have been Special Judge(s) under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the PC committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, u/ Act; s 223 of Cr. P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases. (iii) In the instant case, the petitioners have not [para 21 and 25] [20-A-E; 24-H; 25-A-B] F F challenged the nomination made by the High Court Vivek Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2003 (3) of Delhi to the NCT of Delhi. They have challenged Suppl. SCR 1087 = (2003) 8 SCC 628 - relied on. the letter dated 15.3.2011 written by the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi to the District Judges A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak., 1984 (2) SCR concerned intimating them about nomination of an 914 = (1984) 2 SCC 500; Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service for his G G 2000 (1) SCR 468 = (2000) 2 SCC 504 - referred to. appointment as Special Judge for 2G Scam Cases. [para 26] [25-C-G, H; 26-A-D] 2.1 As regards validity of the Notification dated 28.3.2011 issued by the NCT of Delhi and Administrative High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the Delhi High Court, Paliwal 1998 (1) SCR 961 = (1998) 3 SCC 72 and Registrar this Court hold as follows: H H ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. v. REGR. GEN., DELHI 5 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. HIGH COURT (Admn.) High Court of Orissa v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy 1999 A A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) (2) Suppl. SCR 473 = (1999) 7 SCC 725 - referred to. No. 57 of 2012 etc. 2.2 The order dated 11.4.2011 was passed by this Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Court under Art. 136 read with Art. 142 of the Constitution, WITH in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case. B B In Rupa Asbhok Hurra it has been held that a final W.P. (C) Nos. 59 & 96 of 2012. judgment or order passed by this Court cannot be E.C. Agrawala, Siddharth Singla, Garima Prashad for the assailed in an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution Petitioner. by an aggrieved person, whether he was a party to the case or not. In this view also, it is not open to the Prashant Bhushan, Annam D.N. Rao, B.V. Balaram Das C C petitioner to indirectly assail the order passed by this for the Respondents. Court in 2G Scam case. No interference is called for against the impugned order taking cognizance of the The Judgment of the Court was delivered by offence against the petitioners. [para 27-29] [26-E-F; 27- SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Feeling C-D] D D aggrieved by the order dated 21st December, 2011 passed Rupa Asbhok Hurra v.