- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
K.P. James, Kanjirat... v. A. Manikandan, Ayikk...
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 12 of 2014 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam. They filed Criminal M.P. No. 338 of 2014 under Section 239 of the Code seeking discharge. The Special Court dismissed that discharge application and the accused filed the present revision petition challenging the order.
The prosecution's case, as stated in the record, is that the first accused (who was the Manager of Ind Bank Housing Limited, Ernakulam during 1994–1998) entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused to obtain housing loans by submitting forged documents and cheating the bank. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed loan applications which were allegedly sanctioned by the first accused by corruption and misuse of his official position. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are said to have personated other persons and acted as guarantors. It is alleged that the bank was induced to deliver Rs. 2,00,000 to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 knowing the funds would be used for purposes other than those for which the loans were sanctioned. The offences alleged include Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is recorded that the first accused was the only public servant in the case. The prosecution reported to the Special Court on 22.9.2014 that the first accused had died. There is no dispute in the record that the charge was not framed by the learned Special Judge against the first accused and the other accused until the death of the first accused.
Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that, because of the death of the sole public servant prior to framing of charge, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction and the Special Judge should have transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial in accordance with law. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in State through C.B.I. New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh (reported as 2014 (1) KLT 666 (SC)) to support that submission. The court heard both sides and delivered the opinion summarised here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Special Judge/Special Court (constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act framework) retains jurisdiction to try non–Prevention of Corruption (non-PC) offences against private persons when the sole public servant in the case dies prior to framing of charge.
- Whether, in the event jurisdiction is lost by the Special Court for the reasons above, the appropriate course is to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 228(1)(a) of the Code.
Arguments of the Parties
Revision Petitioners' Arguments
- The trial before the Special Court is bad in law because the sole public servant (the first accused) died before charges were framed.
- Consequently, the learned Special Judge was duty bound to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial under Section 228(1)(a) of the Code.
- Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in State through C.B.I. New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh to support the proposition that where the public servant dies prior to framing of charge, the Special Court loses jurisdiction to try non-PC offences against private persons.
The opinion does not set out a detailed account of the prosecution's counter-arguments in the record beyond the statement "Heard both sides."
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State through C.B.I. New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014 (1) KLT 666 (SC)) | The Special Judge's jurisdiction to try non-PC offences depends on the jurisdictional fact of "trying any case" under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and once powers under sub‑section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act have been exercised (i.e., charges framed and the Special Judge proceeded against non‑PC offences along with PC offences), the subsequent death of the sole public servant does not divest jurisdiction. Conversely, if the public servant dies prior to framing of charge, the Special Court lacks jurisdiction to try non-PC offences. | The court relied on the Jitender Kumar Singh passages (paragraphs 36, 43 and 45 as cited) to conclude that because the first accused died before any charge was framed by the Special Court, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case and therefore the order of the Special Court upholding jurisdiction was in error. |
| Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao (AIR 2002 SC 1598) | Reiteration of Article 141 principle: the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India; the ratio of decisions binds while obiter may be of persuasive weight but not binding as precedent for differing facts. | The court invoked this authority to emphasise that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Jitender Kumar Singh is binding and must be followed by subordinate courts; therefore the Special Court's contrary conclusion could not be sustained. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by recording the factual matrix: the first accused was the only public servant, he died on 22.9.2014, and no charge had been framed by the Special Judge against the first accused or the others prior to his death. The court observed that counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that therefore the Special Court lacked jurisdiction and that the case should have been transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The court analysed the Supreme Court's decision in State through C.B.I. v. Jitender Kumar Singh. It extracted and relied on two key propositions from that decision:
- Paragraph 36: Trying any case under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge to exercise powers to try offences other than those specified in Section 3.
- Paragraph 43 (and related passages): If the Special Judge has exercised powers under sub‑section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act to proceed against non‑PC offences along with PC offences (i.e., charge framed and the exercise of jurisdictional power completed), the later death of the sole public servant does not divest the Special Judge of jurisdiction; but if the public servant dies prior to framing of charge, the Special Judge lacks jurisdiction to try non‑PC offences.
The court applied these principles to the facts of the present case: because the first accused died before any charge was framed, the jurisdictional fact required for the Special Judge to try non‑PC offences under the PC Act did not exist. The court found that the Special Court's conclusion to the contrary was erroneous.
The court also emphasised the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions under Article 141 of the Constitution, citing Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao, to support the proposition that subordinate courts are bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court. Applying that binding precedent, the court concluded the Special Court ought to have transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 228(1)(a) of the Code once it became apparent that the jurisdictional fact (framing of charge against the public servant) did not exist prior to the public servant's death.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Special Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Special Court with a direction to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned as provided under Section 228(1)(a) of the Code.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The Special Court's order dismissing the discharge application is set aside and the case must be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further proceedings, because the sole public servant died prior to framing of charge and the Special Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to try the non‑PC offences.
- No broader new precedent was created by this opinion; the court applied and followed the law as declared by the Supreme Court in State through C.B.I. v. Jitender Kumar Singh and the binding‑law principle under Article 141 as explained in Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao.
Directions
The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 15.1.2016.
B. Sudheendra Kumar, J.:— The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C No. 12 of 2014 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam. The revision petitioners filed Crl.M.P No. 338 of 2014 before the court below under Section 239 of the Code praying for discharge. The court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the first accused, who was the Manager of Ind Bank Housing Limited, Ernakulam during the period from 1994 to 1998, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused for obtaining housing loans by submitting forged documents by cheating the Bank. On the basis of the criminal conspiracy, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed housing loan applications, which were sanctioned by the first accused by corruption and illegal means by mis-using his official position. Further, the accused Nos. 5 and 6 also joined in the conspiracy and they personated them as different persons and executed the loan agreement as guarantors. By doing so, the accused persons induced the bank to deliver an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as housing loan, knowing that it would be used for the purpose other than the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned. On the said allegations, it was alleged that the accused committed the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C read with Section 120B I.P.C and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. It is not disputed that the first accused alone is the public servant in this case. It was reported by the prosecution before the Court on 22.9.2014 that the first accused died. There is no dispute that the charge was not framed by the learned Special Judge against the first accused and other accused till the death of the first accused. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the trial before the special court is bad in law and consequently, the learned special Judge was duty bound to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State through C.B.I New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014 (1) KLT 666 (SC)), to buttress his submission. The Apex Court, in the above said decision considered the question whether on the death of the sole public servant, the Special Judge would cease to have jurisdiction to continue with the trial against the private persons for non-PC offences.
5. The Apex Court in Jitender Kumar Singh (supra) held in paragraph 36 thus:-
“Therefore, trying a case by a Special Judge under S. 3(1) is a sine-qua-non for exercising jurisdiction by the Special Judge for trying any offence, other than an offence specified in S. 3. “Trying any case” under S. 3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge to exercise powers to try any offence other than an offence specified in S. 3”
6. The Apex Court further held in Jitender Kumar Singh (supra) in paragraph 43 thus:-
“Consequently, once the power has been exercised by the Special Judge under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the P.C Act to proceed against non-PC offences along with PC offences, the mere fact that the sole public servant dies after the exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4, will not divest the jurisdiction of the Special Judge or vitiate the proceedings pending before him.”
7. It is clear from the above passage that even if the sole public servant dies subsequent to the framing of charge by the Special court, that will not divest the jurisdiction of the Special Judge or vitiate the proceedings pending before him. Once a charge is framed in a case, the Special Judge has no power under the Code to discharge the accused and therefore, the trial has to come to its logic end.
8. The Apex Court in Jitender Kumar Singh (supra) in paragraph 45 held thus:
“We may now examine Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011, where the F.I.R 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 120B, 420 I.P.C read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the P.C 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 P.C 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 P.C offences. In the instant case, no P.C offence has been committed by any of the non-public servants so as to fall under Section 3(1) of the P.C Act. Consequently, there was no occasion for the special Judge to try any case relating to offences under the P.C Act against the Appellant. The trying of any case under the P.C Act against a public servant or a non-public servant, as already indicated, is a sin-qua-non for exercising powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of P.C Act. In the instant case, since no P.C 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 P.C 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-P.C Offences.”
9. Thus, it is very clear from the above passage that if the public servant dies prior to the framing of the charge, the special court looses its jurisdiction to try the case. The court below observed that there was no allegation of conspiracy to commit the offences under the PC Act in Jitender Kumar Singh (supra). However, it is clear from the above mentioned passage that the offences alleged in the case decided by the Apex Court, included criminal conspiracy to commit the offence under the P.C Act as well. In the said circumstances, the court below erred in finding that the court below had jurisdiction to try the case.
10. In this juncture, it is apposite to mention that all the courts in India are bound by the law declared by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
11. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Director of Settlements v. M.R Apparao (AIR 2002 SC 1598) held in paragraph 7 thus:
“So far as the first question is concerned, Article 141 of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law. It is, therefore, an essential function of the Court to interpret a legislation. The statements of the Court on matters other than law like facts may have no binding force as the facts of two cases may not be similar. But what is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding of facts. It is the principle found out upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the questions before the Court that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence. To determine whether a decision has ‘declared law’ it cannot be said to be a law when a point is disposed of on concession and what is binding is the principle underlying a decision. A judgment of the Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered. An ‘obiter dictum’ as distinguished from a ratio decidendi is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Such an obiter may not have a binding precedent as the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced, but even though an obiter may not have a bind effect as a precedent, but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight. The law which will be binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations of points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. So far as constitutional matters are concerned, it is a practice of the Court not to make any pronouncement on points not directly raised for its decision. The decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court.”
12. The above decision would make it clear that all courts in India are bound to follow the law declared by the Apex Court. In this case, the Apex Court clearly declared law on the subject in question. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Jitender Kumar Singh (supra), the special court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence as the public servant died prior to the framing of charge by the Special court. In the said circumstances, the court below ought to have transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned as provided under Section 228(1)(a) of the Code. For the said reason, the order impugned cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.
13. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the order impugned and the matter is remitted to the court below for transferring the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, as provided under Seciton 228(1)(a) of the Code.
14. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 15.1.2016
Alert