Jharkhand High Court
Nishi Kant vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 12 July, 2011
Author: Jaya Roy
Bench: Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
------
Tr. Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2011
------
Nishi Kant ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Superintendent of Police CBI ... Opposite Party.
------
CORAM; HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
----
For the Appellant: M/s. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate,
C.A.Bardhan & Rishi Kant, Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, (A.P.P)
For the C.B.I. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate.
ORDER
05/ 12.07.2011Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the C.B.I.
2. Petitioner has filed this application for transfer of the C.B.I. Case No. R.C.12(A)/2010 from Dhanbad C.B.I. Court to Ranchi C.B.I. Court which is at present pending in the Court of Special Judge C.B.I. at Dhanbad.
3. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case has been registered against the petitioner on 21.10.2010 on the basis of a written report of Sri Rohan Lal Agarwalla under Section 7 of P.C./ Act. The informant in his report to C.B.I. had alleged that the petitioner who is a Manager (Law), Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank Ranchi (Jharkhand) had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.51,000/- from him on telephone for processing the application for getting registered a p-lot of land measuring about 33 decimals located at Village Jainager, Dhanbad pertaining to M/s Rai Enterprises mortgaged to Allahabad Bank, Park Market, Dhanbad against a loan, since the said loan account turned NPA. He further stated that the petitioner had threatened him on phone from Ranchi to get cancelled the sale of above plot of land in auction in favour of him, if the illegal gratification of Rs.51000/- is not been paid to him today at Ranchi. It was further stated that a preliminary enquiry had been made and there after a trap was laid and the petitioner was said to have been arrested at Ranchi. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act against the petitioner in C.B.I. Court, Dhanbad.
4. Mr. Mazumdar has contended that from the F.I.R. it is clear that the petitioner has alleged to have demanded illegal gratification from Ranchi and it further appears that a trap was laid and executed at Ranchi and shadow witnesses and other witnesses were also held from Ranchi. All the Pre and Post Trap formalities performed at Ranchi but the charge sheet was filed by the C.B.I. in the Court of Dhanbad where no occurrence related to the present case had taken place. It is further submitted that the even the shadow witnesses and other witnesses were also held from Ranchi.
5. Mr. Mazumdar has contended that it is settled principal of law laid down under section 4(2) of the P.C. Act that the question of jurisdiction in respect of trial has to be determined by reference to the aforesaid section and not any provision of Cr.P.C. According to the provision of Section 4(2) of P.C. Act any offence committed of the said act shall be tried by the Spl. Judge for the area within which it was committed. The Section 4(2) says:-
"4. Cases triable by Special Judges- (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), 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."
6. A decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CBI AHD Patna V/s Braj Bhushan Prasad and others reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. page no.4683 (SC), in paragraphs 42,43,44,45, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the trial of the offence of P.C. Act is determined as per section 4(2) of P.C. Act 1988 any where the offence was committed.
7. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has pointed out that the contents of the F.I.R. shows that the complainant Shri Roshan Lal Agarwalla son of Late Inder Lal Agarwalla, B-21, Bhulinagar, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) visited CBI, ACB, Dhanbad on 21.10.2010 and lodged a written complaint dated 21.10.2010 addressed to the Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad alleging therein the demand of an illegal gratification of Rs.51,000/- (fifty one thousand) from him by Shri Nishi Kant, Manager (Law), Zonal office, Allahabad Bank, Ranchi (Jharkhand) over phone on 19.10.2010 and onwards for processing the application for getting registered a plot of land measuring about 33 Decimal located at Village- Jainagar, Govindpur at Dhanbad in the name of the complainant since the said plot of land mortagaged with Allahabad Bank, Park Market Branch, Dhanbad by Rai Enterprises against a loan which has been turned NPA. The said Sri Nishi Kant has also threatened over phone to get cancelled the sale of above plot of land in auction in favour of the complainant, if bribe amount of Rs.51,000/- is not paid to him at Ranchi. Whereas complainant was at Dhanbad and got information about the demand of said bribe amount over phone at Dhanbad. It is contented by Mr. Khan that the demand was made by the petitioner and communicated to the complainant at Dhanbad and further more, lands in question located at Village Jainagar, Govindpur at District Dhanbad. Therefore, offence is committed partly in one area i.e. at Dhanbad as the demand communicated to the complainant at Dhanbad on phone. Thus, the complainant got demand of bribe at Dhanbad from the petitioner. As the part of the offence was committed in the District of Dhanbad, it cannot be said the Special Judge Dhanbad has no jurisdiction.
8. Considering the fact that admittedly the complainant was at Dhanbad when the demand from the complainant was made by the petitioner on phone. Furthermore, the land in question is located in the District of Dhanbad. In my opinion, Dhanbad C.B.I. Court has got jurisdiction legally to try the instant case. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this transfer petition. Accordingly the transfer petition is dismissed.
(Jaya Roy, J) SI/-