PRADIP MITTAL S/O KAUSHAL KISHORE MITTAL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS

Bombay High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 1938 of 2017, Judgment Date: Jul 19, 2017

• From the ratio laid down in the above judgment, it is clear that the main determinative factor for deciding the place of offence is the place where the offence has actually taken place. It is also observed in the said judgment that when it is certain where exactly the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act is committed, it is an unnecessary exercise to ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities such as conspiracy or preparation had taken place or where the consequences had ensued.The offence as defined under Section13(1)(d) is made out, when the public servant, by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as a public servant,obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant,obtains for any person or any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.We are of the opinion that when the public servant actually took physical delivery of the part of the bribe amount, he had clearly obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
• From the said wordings, it is quite clear that Section 12 can be applied in connection with commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and 11 only. Section 12 does not refer to Section 13 at all. Therefore, Section 13 is a complete offence by itself, independent of Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence when the public servant had accepted the amount at Vishakhapatanam, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) was completed and therefore was no question of taking recourse to Section 12 to find out whether the investigating agency or the Courts at Vishakhapatanam had any territorial jurisdiction considering the events which had taken place in Mumbai.
• Even otherwise, as far as Section 7 is concerned, the question would arise as to what transpired at Vishakhapatanam would constitute acceptance of the tainted money or can it be said that the public servant had obtained the bribe amount In this case, when the accused no.1, who was the public servant, had actually taken physical delivery of the part of the bribe amount at Vishakhapatanam, even for the purposes of Section 7, it can be said that the acceptance as envisaged under Section 7, was made at Vishakhapatanam.

PRADIP MITTAL S/O KAUSHAL KISHORE MITTAL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS