STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHIversusJITENDER KUMAR SINGH

                    (2014] 2 S.C.R. 621


            STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI                           A
                              v:
                 JITENDER KUMAR SINGH
             (Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008)
                    FEBRUARY 05, 2014
                                                                  B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

    PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988:

     Purpose of enactment - Held: Although Indian Penal c
Code provided for punishment for the offence of bribery and
corruption even against the public servants, Parliament, in its
wisdom, noticed that the Code was not adequate to meet the
exigencies of time and a need was felt to introduce a special
legislation with a view to eradicate the evil of bribery and D
corruption from the society - Consequently, the Prevention of
Corruption Act was enacted - Penal Code, 1860.

      s.3(1) - Jurisdiction of Special Judge to proceed against
a non-public servant - Held: A Special Judge appointed ul
s.3(1) of the PC Act has got jurisdiction to proceed exclusively E
against a public servant and exclusively against a non-public
servant as well, depending upon the nature of the offence
referred to in Chapter Ill of the PC Act - Junction of a public
servant is not a must for the Special Judge to proceed against
a non-public servant for any offence alleged to have been F
committed by him under Chapter Ill of the PC Act - A conjoint
reading of s.3(1) along with ss. 4(1) and (2) would make it amply
clear that only the Special Judge has got the jurisdiction to
try the offences specified in sub-section (1) of s.3 committed
by a public servant or a non-public servant, alone or jointly. G

    s.3(1) - Non-framing of charge against the pubt;c servant
and private persons, uls.3(1), while public servant was alive -
Held: In such a situation, the Special Judge had no occasion
                             621                                  H
     622      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 2 S.C\R.


.A   to "try any case" u/s.3(1) of the PC Act, either against a public
     servant or a private person, so as to try any offence other than
     an offence specified in s.3, meaning thereby, non-PC
     offences against private person - SRecial Judge appointed ul
     s.3(1) could exercise the powers under sub-section (3) to s.4
B    to try non-PC offence - Therefore, trying a case by Special
     Judge u/s.3(1) is a sine qua non for, exercising jurisdiction by
     the Special Judge for trying an offence other than an offence
     specified in s.3 - "Trying any case'~ u/s.3(1) is, therefore, a
     jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge to exercise powers to
c     try Non-PC offence.

         . s.4(3) - 'Trying any case' - /nt~rpretation of - Held: It
     means trying any case relating to the offences referred to in
     ss.3(1)(a) and (b) of Act for which .exclusive jurisdiction is
     conferred on the Special Judge - A Special Judge, while
D    exercising, exclusive jurisdiction, thaf'is, when trying any case
     relating to offences u/ss.3(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, may also
     try any offence other than the offence specified in s.3, with
     which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973 be charged at the same trial - An accused
 E   person, either a public servant or non~public servant, who has
     been charged for an offence u/s.3(1) of the PC Act, could also
     be charged for an offence under /PC, in the event of which,
     the Special Judge has got the jurisdiction to try such offences
     against the public servant as well as against a non-public
 F   servant - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

          ss.4(1), 4(3) - Obligation on the part of Special judge to
     try Non-PC cases - Held: Exclusion of the jurisdiction of
     ordinary Criminal Court, so far as offer:ices under the PC Act
 G   are concerned, has been explicitly expressed u/s.4(1) of the
     PC Act, which does not find a place, in respect of non-PC
     offences in sub-section (3) of s.4 of the PC Act - It is not
     obligatory on the part of a Special Judge to try non-PC
     offences - The expression "may also try" gives an element
     of discretion on the part of the Special Judge which will           ,
 H
   STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                  623
               KUMAR SINGH
 depend upon the facts of each case and the inter-relation          A
 between PC offences and non-PC offences - A Special Judge
  exercising powers under the PC Act is not expected to try non-
  PC offences totally unconnected with any PC offences u/s.3(1)
  of the PC Act and in the event of a Special Judge not trying
··any offence uls.3(1) of the PC Act, the question of the Special   B
  Judge trying non-PC offences does not arise - Trying of a PC
  offence is a jurisdictional fact to exercise the powers under
  sub-section (3) of s.4 - Jurisdiction of the Special Judge, as
  such, has not been divested, but the exercise of jurisdiction,
  depends upon the jurisdictional fact of trying a PC offence.      c
     s.4(3) - .Death of public servant and charges framed
against public servant and private person - Held: Once the·
power has been exercised by the Special Judge u/sub-section
(3) of s.4 of the PC Act to proceed against non-PC offences
along with PC offences, the mere fact that the sole public D
servant dies after the exercise of powers under sub-section
(3) of s.4, will not divest the jurisdiction of the Special Judge
or vitiate the proceedings pending before him - The trying of
any case under the PC Act against a public servant or a
private person is a sine-qua-non for exercising powers under E
sub-section (3) of s.4 of 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 F
Act, since no charge has been framed prior to the death of
the public servant.

     JURISDICTION of a Court or a Tribunal - Held:
 Existence of a jurisdictional fact is thus a sine qua non or       G
 condition precedef]l to the assumption of jurisdiction by a
 Court.

      In Criminal appeal no.943 of 2008, a public servant
  in conspiracy with private persons committed offence
- under PC Act. Charge sheet was filed before the Special           H
    624    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 2 S.C.R.

A Judge. The public servant died. The Special Judge
    framed charges against all the accused persons under
    IPC and also under PC Act. The accused who was a
    private person filed an application for modification,
    amendment or alteration Qf charges on account of death
B of the public servant. When matter came up before the
    High Court, it held that on the death of a public servant,
 .. the offences under the PC Act cannot be proceeded with
    and directed to modify and alter and or amend the
    charges in view of death of the public servant.
c      In Criminal appeal no.161 of 2011, public servant died
  even befo~e the framing of charge,s. The High Court held
  that upon death, the case against public servants alone
  abates and rest of them can be proceeded against by the
  Special Judge, since the Court 'once vested with the
D jurisdiction cannot be divested of it on the death of a
  public servant.

        The question for consideration arising out of Criminal
   appeal no.943/2008 were whether the Special Judge, after
E framing charges against a Public Servant under Section
  ·13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) falling under Section 3(1)
   of the PC Act and against private, persons for offences
   under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can go
   ahead with the trial of the case against the private
F persons for non-PC offences, even, after the death of the
   sole public servant; and that even assuming that the
   Special Judge has jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of
   Section 4 of the PC Act to proceed against the private
   persons, is the Special Judge duty ,bound to try any non-
G PC offence, other than the offences specified under
   Section 3 of the PC Act against the accused persons
   charged at the same trial.

      The question for consideration arising out of Criminal
  appeal No. 161 of 2011 was whetller the Special Judge
H has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to try
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER           625
              KUMAR SINGH
non-PC offences against private persons whe11 no A
charges have been framed against public servants for
trying a case for offences under Section 3(1) of the PC
Act, since they died before framing of charges under the
PC Act or IPC.
                                                         B
     Allowing both the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. The Indian Penal Code has provided for
punishment for the offence of bribery and corruption
even against the public servants. Parliament, in its
wisdom, noticed that the Penal Code was not adequate C
to meet the exigencies of time and a need was felt to
introduce a special legislation with a view to eradicate the
evil of bribery and corruption from the society.
Consequently, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
was enacted, which was amended in the year 1964, D
based on the recommendations of the Santhanam
Committee. Parliament still felt that the anti-corruption
laws should be made more effective, by widening their
coverage and enhancing penalties and to expedite the
proceedings and hence the 1988 Act was enacted. [para E
20] [642-A-C]

     1.2. Chapter II of the:..PC Act deals with the
appointment of Special Judges and Chapter Ill deals with
the offences and penalties. Section 3 of the PC Act deals
with the power to appoint Special Judges. Section 5 of F
the PC Act deals with the procedure ·and powers of
Special Judge. Section 3(1) of the PC Act confers power
on the Central Government or trte State Government to
appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary,
for such area or areas or for such cases or group of cases G
as will be specified in the notification to be issued in the
Official Gazette. The Special Judge is so empowered to
try any offence punishable under Section 3(1 )(a) of the
PC Act. The Special Judge is also empowered to try
under Section 3(1)(b) any conspiracy to commit or any H
    626     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 2 S.C.R:


A attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences
  specified in clause (a). Following offences would come
  within the scope of Section 3(1) 'Of the PC Act: (1) Any
  offence punishable under the PC Act. (2) Any conspiracy
  to commit any offence punishable under the PC Act. (3)
B Any attempt to commit any offence punishable under the
  PC Act. (4) Any abetment of arw offence punishable
  under the PC Act. [paras 21, 22] f642-D; 645-B-F]

       1.3. Section 7 of the PC Act refers to offences dealing
  with public servant taking gratification, other than the
C legal remuneration in respect of an' official act. Section 10
  deals with punishment for abetm~nt by a public servant
  of offences defined in Sections 8 and 9. Section 11 of the
  PC Act refers to an offence of a public servant obtaining
  valuable thing, without consideration from person
D concerned in proceeding or business transacted by SJJCh
  public servant. Offences under Sec,tions 7, 1O and 11 can
  be committed only by the jlublic servant, though an
  offence under Section 7 can alsb be committed by a
  person expected to be a public ser-Vant. An offence under
E Section 7 or 11 could also be abetted by a non-public
  servant, for which punishment has ~een prescribed under
  Section 12 of the PC Act. Sections, deals with the taking
  gratification, by corrupt or illegal' means, to influence
  public servant. Section 9 deals with taking gratification,
F for exercise of personal influence' with public servant.
  Offences under Sections 8 and 9 can be committed by a
  person who need not necessarily be a public servant. An
  offence under Sections 8, 9 or 12 can be committed by a
  public servant or by a private person or by combination
G of both. Section 13 deals with the criminal misconduct by
  a public servant, which is exclusive'y an offence against
  the public servant relating to criminal misconduct. An
  offence under Sections 13 is made punishable under
  Section 15 of the PC Act. These prQvisions indicate that
H a public servant as well as a non-public servant can
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER           627
              KUMAR SINGH
commit offences punishable under the PC Act. [para 24]    A
[645-G-H; 646-A-D]

     1.4. A Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) of
the PC Act has got jurisdiction to proceed exclusively
against a public servant and exclusively against a non-
                                                           8
public servant as well, depending upon the nature of the
offence referred to in Chapter Ill of the PC Act. Junction
of a public servant is not a must for the Special Judge to
proceed against a non-public servant for any offence
alleged to have been committed by him under Chapter Ill
of the·PC Act. An offence under Section 8 or Section 9 C
can be committed by non-public servant and he can be
proceeded against under the PC Act without joinder of
any public servant. Thus, offences under Sections 7, 10,
11 and 13 of the PC Act can be committed by a public
servant though an offence under Section 7 can be D
committed also by a "person expected to be a public
servant". On the other hand: Section 8 .uses the words.
"whoever •.. ", simpliciter, without using any other
qualifying words. Likewise, Sections 9 and 12 also use
the words "whoever ... " simpliciter. Thus, an offence E
under Sections 8, 9 or 12 can be committed by any
person, who need not necessarily be a public servant. .
Such an offence can, therefore, be committed by a public
servant or by a private person or by a combination of the
two. It is thus clear that an offence under the PC Act can F
be committed by either a public servant or a private
person or a combination of both and in view of the
mandate of Section 4(1) of the PC Act, read with Section
3(1) thereof, such offences can be tried only by a Special
Judge. Thus, the scheme of the PC Act makes it quite G
clear that even a private person who is involved in an
offence mentioned in Section 3(1) of the PC Act, is
required to be tried only by a Special Judge, and by no
other Court. Moreover, it is not necessary that in every
offence under the PC Act, a public servant must H
    628    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A '!ecessarily be an accused. In other words, the existence
  of a public servant for facing the trial before the Special
  Court is not a must and even ln his absence, private
  persons can be tried for PC as well as non-PC offences,
  depending upon the facts of the case. Therefore, it is not
B the law that only along with t~e junction of a public
  servant in array of parties, the Special Judge can proceed
  against private persons who have committed offences
  punishable under the PC Act. [para 25- 29] [646-E-G; 647-
  B-E; 648-B-D]
c      1.5. Sections 3(1 )(a) and (b) deal with only the
  offences punishable under the PC Act and not any
  offence punishable under IPC ,or any other law and
  Section 4(1) of the PC Act makes it more explicit. Section
  4(1) of the PC Act has used a non-abstante clause. It
D says, "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". Consequently, the offences referred to in
E Section 3(1) cannot be tried by the ordinary criminal
  court, since jurisdiction has been specifically conferred
  on a Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) of the
  PC Act. Sub-section (2) of Section. 4 also makes it clear,
  which says that every offence specified in sub-section (1)
F 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
G the Central Government. A conjoi'nt reading of Section
  3(1) along with Sections 4(1) and (2) would make it amply
  clear that only the Special Judge has got the jurisdiction
  to try the offences specified in sub•section (1) of Section
  3 committed by a public servant or, a non-public servant,
H alone or jointly. [Paras 30, 31] [648-E-H; 649-A-B]
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHJ v. JITENDER             629
              KUMAR SINGH
      1.6. Sub-section (3) of Section.. 4 of the PC Act,     A
indicates that "when trying any cas,e", which means
tryi11g any case relating to the offences referred to in
Section 3(1 )(a) and (b) of the PC Act for which exclusive
jurisdiction is conferred on the Special Judge. A Special
Judge, while exercising, exclusive jurisdiction, that is,    B
when trying any case relating to offences under Sections
3(1)(a) and (b) of the PC Act, may als9 try any offence
other than the offence specified in Section 3, with which
the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 be charged at the same trial. An accused, in a given    c
case, may be charged under the Code of Criminal
Procedure on an offence being committed under the IPC
and the offence specified in Section 3 of the PC Act.
Criminal cases that can be tried by a Special Judge are
under the PC Act and also for the charges under IPC or       0
any other legislation. Conspiracy to commit any offence
either under the PC Act or under the IPC is a separate
offence, has to be separately charged and tried. In other
words, an accused person, either a public servant or
non-public servant, who has been charged for an offence
                                                             E
under Section 3(1f of the PC Act, could also be charged
for an offence under IPC, in the event of which, the
Special Judge has got the jurisdiction to try such
offences against the public servant as well as against a
non-public servant. [Para 32, 34] [649-B-E; 650-A-B]
                                                             F
     2.1. In Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2011, no charge was
framed against the public servant, while he was alive,
under Section 3(1) nor any charge was framed against a
private person for any offence under Section 3(1) of the
PC Act. The Special Judge, therefore, had no occasion        G
to "try any case" under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, either
against a public servant or a private person, so as to try
any offence other than an offence specified in Section 3,
meaning thereby, non-PC offences against private
person, like the appellant. The Special Judge appointed      H
    630     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A under Section 3(1) could exercise, the powers under sub-
  section (3) to Section 4 to try non-PC offence. Therefore,
  trying a case _by a Special Judge ,under Section 3(1) is a
  sine-qua-non for exercising juri~diction by the Special
  Judge for trying any offence, other than an offence
B specified in Section 3. "Trying any case" under Section
  3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge
  to exercise powers to ~ry any offence other than an
  offence specified in Section 3. [paras 35, 36] [650-E-H;
  651-A]
c        2.2. Exclusion of the jurisdictiei>n of ordinary Criminal
    Court, so far as offences under the',PC Act are concerned,
    has been explicitly expressed under Section 4(1) of the
    PC Act, which does not find a place in respect of non-
    PC offences in sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act.
D   Further, it is not obligatory on the part of a Special Judge
    to try non-PC offences. The expression "may also try"
    gives an element of discretion on the part of the Special
    Judge which will depend upon the facts of each case and
    the inter-relation between PC offences and non-PC
E   offences. A Special Judge exercising powers under the
                                          I

    PC Act is not expected to try noA-PC offences totally
    unconnected with any PC offences ,under Section 3(1) of
    the PC Act and in the event of a Special Judge not trying
    any offence under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, the question
F   of the Special Judge trying non-PC offences does not
    arise. Trying of a PC offence is a jurisdictional fact to
    exercise the powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 4.
    Jurisdiction of the Special Judge, as such, has not been
    divested, but the exercise of jurisdiction, depends upon
G   the jurisdictional fact of trying a PC offence. [paras 37, 38]
    [651-B-F]
       2.3. When the jurisdiction of a Court or a Tribunal is
  dependent on the existence of a parti,cular state of affairs,
  that state of affairs may be described as preliminary to,
H or collective to the merits of the is.sue. Existence of a
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER              631
              KUMAR SINGH
jurisdictional fact is thus a sine qua non or condition        A
precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by a Court.
[para 39] (651-G-H]

     Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons (2007) 8
SCC 559: 2007 (10) SCR 656; Ramesh Chandra Sank/a v.           B
Vikram Cement & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 58: 2008 (10) SCR
243; Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 2
sec 179: 1979 (1) SCR 993 - relied on.
     Kartongen Kemi Ochforvaltning AB v. State through CBI
(2004) 1 JCC 218; Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993) 3 C
SCC 609: 1993 (3) SCR 543; Sanichar Sahni v. State of
Bihar (2009) 7 SCC 198: 2009 (10) SCR 112; Mohd. Arif v.
State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 621: 2011 (10) SCR 56
- referred to.
                                                               D
     3.1. Where a public servant dies at the fag end of the
trial, by that time, several witnesses might have been
examined and to hold that the entire trial would be vitiated
due to death of a sole public servant would defeat the
entire object and purpose of the PC Act, which is enacted E
for effective combating of corruption and to expedite
cases related to corruption and bribery. The purpose of
the PC Act is to make anti-corruption laws more effective
in order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-
to-day trial of cases, transparency with. regard to grant of F
stay and exercise of powers of revision on interlocutory
orders have also been provided under the PC Act.
Consequently, once the power has been exercised by the
Special Judge under sub'-section (3) of Section 4 of the
PC Act to proceed against non-PC offences along with
PC offences, the mere fact that the sole public servant G
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.
Therefore in Criminal appeal no.943 of 2008, the order of
the High Court is set aside and the· Special Judge is H
    632    surREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 2 S.C.R.

A   directed to complete the trial of the cases within a period
    of six months. [para 43, 44] [653-G-H; 654-A-D]

         3.2. In Criminal Appeal No. 1'61 of 2011, 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
8
    under Sections 1208, 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.
C   The Special Judge also could 'not frame any charge
    against non-public servants. 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
D   ariyof the non-public servants so as to fall under Section
    3fi) of the PC Act. Consequently, there was no occasion
    for the special Judge to try any case relating to offences
    under the PC Act against the Appellant. The trying of any
    case under the PC Act against a public servant or a non-
E   public servant is a sine-qua-non for exercising powers
    under sub-section (3) of Secti~n 4 of PC Act. In the
    instant case, since no PC offenc,e has been committed
    by any of the non-public servants and no charges have
                                       I

    been framed against the public ~ervant, while he was
F   alive, the Special Judge had no o~casion to try any case
    against any of them under the P~ Act, since no charge
    has been framed prior to the deatti of the public servant.
    The jurisdictional fact does not exjst so far as this appeal
    is concerned, so as to exercise jur,sdiction by the Special
G   Judge to deal with non-PC offenc~s. Consequently, there
    is .no error in the view taken by, the Special Judge in
    forwarding the case papers t9 the Court of Chief
    Metropolitan Magistrate for trying the case in accordance
    with law. [Para 45, 46] [654-E-H; 655-A-C]
H
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                 633
              KUMAR SINGH
                     Case Law Reference:                          A
    (2004) 1 JCC 218                  referred to·   Para 9

    1993 (3) SCR 543                  referred to    Para 32

    2009 (10) SCR 112                 referred to    Para 33
                                                                  B
    2011 (10) SCR 56                  referred to    Para 33

    2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1087          relied on      Para 34

    2007 (10) SCR 656                 relied on      Para 39
                                                                  c
    2008 (10) SCR 243                 relied on      Para 39

    1979 (1) SCR 993                  relied on      Para 40

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 943 of 2008.                                     D

     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2006 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Revn. Petition No. 535
of 2005.
                               WITH                               E
Crl. Appeal No. 161 of 2011.

     P.P. Malhotra, ASG, V. Giri (A.C), Basanth R., K.
 Radhakrishnan, 'Uday U. Lalit, Guru Krishna Kumar,
 Mohammed Sadique T.A. (A.C), Shivaji M. Jadhav, Anish R. F
 Shah, Dr. Ashok Dhamija, T.A. Khan, Yasir Rauf, Sharika
 Bhanot, Sonia Dhamija, Hari. Shankar K., Kawai Nain, Vikas
·Singh Jangra, Aditya Verma, Lakshmi, Asha G. Nair for the
 Appearing Parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    G

     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in these cases,
concerned with the interpretation of various sections that appear
in Chapter II read with Chapter Ill of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act"), especially Sections 3, 4, 5 H
    634      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A   and other related provisions dealing with offences and penalties
    appearing in Chapter Ill of the PC Act.

       2. We are, in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008, concerned
  with the question whether the Special Judge, after framing
  charges against a Public Servant under 13(2) read with Section
8
  13(1)(b) falling under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and against
  private persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467,
  468, 471 IPC can go ahead with th'e trial of the case against
  the private persons for non-PC offences, even after the death
  of the sole public servant. In oth~r words, the question is
C whether, on the death of the sole public servant, the Special
  Judge will cease to have jurisdiction to continue with the trial
  against the private persons for non-PC offences. Further
  question raised is that, assuming that the Special Judge has
  jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act to
D proceed against the private persons, is the Special Judge duty
  bound to try any non-PC offence,, other than the offences
  specified under Section 3 of the PC Act against the accused
  persons charged at the same trial.

E        3. In Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011, we are concerned
    with the question as to whether the Special Judge has
                                          1




    jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to try non-PC
    offences against private persons when no charges have been
    framed against public servants for t!)'ing a case for offences
F   under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, sine~ they died before framing
    of charges under the PC Act or IPC.

      4. We have two conflicting judgments, one rendered by the
  Delhi High Court, which is impugned in Criminal Appeal No.
  943 of 2008 filed by the State through Central Bureau of
G Investigation (CBI), New Delhi and the other rendered by the
  Bombay High Court, which is challenged by a private person
  in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011.'
                                              '


         5. Delhi High Court seems to have taken the view that when
H   public servants and non-public servants are arrayed as co-
   STATE'THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                 635
     KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
 accused and some offences are under the PC Act coupled with A
 other offences under IPC, on death of a public servant, the
 offences under the PC Act cannot be proceeded with and the
 trial Court has to modify and/or alter and/or amend the charges.
 Bombay High Court has taken the view that once the jurisdiction
 is vested on a Special Judge, the same cannot be divested on B
 the death of a public servant and that if a private person has
 abetted any offences punishable under the PC Act, he can be
 tried even without the public servant, in view of the separate
 charge levelled against such private person by the Special
 Judge.                                                           c
       6. We may first deal with the facts in Criminal Appeal No.
  943 of 2008. The CBI, New Delhi registered a case No. RCSIG
  2000/E0001 on 16.5.2000 against one P. K. Samal (A-1), Chief
  Managpr SBI, Jaipur Road, J. K. Singh (A-2), Director M/s
  Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MISL), New Delhi, Rita Singh D
  (A-3), Director M/s MISL, Deepak Singh (A-4) and Proprietor
  Kesoram Refractory, New Delhi, under Section 120B read with
  Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with
  Section 13(1 )(d) of the PC Act and substantive offences under
- Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read E
  with Section 13(1 )(d) of the PC Act alleging that A-1, during
  1996-97, was a party to a criminal conspiracy with A-2, A-3,
  A-4 and others with the object of cheating IDBI, Mumbai and in
  pursuance thereof, A-1 abused his official position to cause
  undue pecuniary advantage to the accused persons A-2 and F
  A-3 and corresponding loss to IDBI, to the tune of
  Rs.3,52,63,550/- by negotiating forged /fictitious invoices
  purportedly of M/s. Kesoram Refractories, a B.K. Birla Group
  Company, Calcutta, against L.Cs opened by SBI, Jaipur Road.
                                                                  G
       7. CBI, after completing the investigation, filed charge-
  sheet on 1.11.2001 before the Special Judge, New Delhi and
  the Special Judge, on 25.3.2003, after hearing the prosecution
  as well as the defence counsel, framed charges against the
  accused persons under Section 120B read with Sections 467, H
    636     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A 471 and 420 IPC and also under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)
  of the PC Act and substantive offences against the accused
  persons under Sections 420, 467, 47·1 IPC and also
  substantive offences under Sections 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the
  PC Act against A-1. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty
B and claimed trial.

        8. The Special Judge, later, posted the case for
  prosecution evidence on 10.4.2003 and, on that day, two
  witnesses were present, but the case was adjourned.
  Meanwhile, on 20.6.2003, the sole public servant A-1 died. A-
C 3 then filed Criminal Revision No. 550 of 2003 before the High
  Court of Delhi on 22.7.2003 challenging the order framing the
  charges against him. The High Court, on 1.8.2003, directed the
  trial Court to record only the examination-in-chief of the
  witnesses. Accordingly, the examination-in-chief of 8
D prosecution witnesses was recorded on different days. On
  28.4.2004, A-2 filed an application before the Special Judge
  for dropping the charges in view of the death of A-1, the sole
  public servant. On 12.5.2004, A-2 filed an application before
  the High C9urt as Criminal M.C. No. 1395/2004 seeking stay
E of further proceedings before the trial Court, till charges are
  amended. The High Court, on 14.5.2004, directed the trial
  Court to dispose of the application filed by A-2 for modification,
  amendment or alteration of charges on account of death of A-
  1 and further directed if the Court feels it necessary, it may add,
F alter or amend the charges and proceed in accordance with
  law.

          9. CBI, however, filed objection to the above application
    before the Special Judge on 20.5.2004. A-2, on 12.7.2005, filed
    Criminal Revision No. 535 of 2005 before the High Court for
G   calling of the case pending before the Special Judge, so as to
    consider the propriety of not passing any order on the
    application for dropping the charges, despite the directions
    issued by the High Court. He also prayed for setting aside the
    c;;harges in view of the death of the sole public servant. CBI
H
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                      637
    KUJvlAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
questioned the maintainability of the revision and also pointed        A   0

out that there is no statutory provision vitiating the jurisdiction
of the Special Judge on death of the public servant. The High
Court, however, placing reliance on its earlier judgement in
Kartongen Kemi Ochforvaltning. AB v. State through CBI
(2004) 1 JCC 218 (Bofors case) held that on the death of a             B
public servant, the offences under the PC Act cannot be
proceeded with and directed to modify and alter and/or amend
the charges in view of the death of A-1, the legality of which is
under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008.

     10. We may now examine the facts in Criminal Appeal No.
                                                                       c
161 of 2011. CBI (Banks Securities & Fraud Cell), Mumbai
registered an FIR on 2.7.1996 which discloses that accused
no. 1, the then Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank
of Maharashtra, Pune, who was working as Deputy General
Manager of Bank of Maharashtra along with accused nos. 9               D
and 10, the employees of the Bank of Maharashtra, entered into
a criminal conspiracy with an intent to cheat the bank, with the
appellant (accused no. 2) and accused Nos. 3 and 5, who were
working as the Managing Director, General Manager of Mis
Orson Electronics Limited respectively. It was also alleged in         E
the FIR that, during 1986-88, A-2 and other accused persons
entered into a criminal conspiracy with the officers of the Ban_k
of Maharashtra and, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy,
obtained huge credit facilities to the tune of Rs.20 crore in favour
of M/s Orson Electronics Limited and M/s Nihon Electronics             F
Limited, of which A-2 was the Managing Director/Director,
knowing very well that both the companies were having very low
capital and were new. It was also alleged in the FIR that those
funds were not utilized for the purpose for which the same were
obtained from the bank and were siphoned off through Mis               G
Orson Electronics Limited and other fictitious firms.
Consequently, accused persons failed to repay the funds of the
bank, thereby the bank was cheated to the tune of Rs.20.64
crores. It was also alleged in the FIR that A-1 had abused his
position as public servant and granted favour to A-2 to A-8 and        H
     638      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 2 S.C.R.


A    thereby caused wrongful losses to the bank.

        11. CBI completed the investigation and the charge-sheet
   was filed on 14.9.2001 against the accused persons for
   offences punishable inter alia under Section 120B read with
 B Section 420 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(b) of
   the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7, corresponding to
   Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the PC Act, in the
   Court of Special Judge, Mumbai.

           12. Ac~sed nos. 9 and 10, though named in the charge-
  C sheet, could not be sent for trial since they died before the
      charge-sheet came to be filed on 14.9.2001. On 18.2.2005, A-
      1, the sole public servantalso expiroo. A-2, the appellant herein,
      then preferred an application before the Special Judge for
      sending the case to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay for
  D conducting the trial for offences under IPC, as the offence under
      the PC Act was not attracted due to the death of the public
    . servant. It was pointed out that, in the charge-sheet, two public
      servants were joined as accused persons, but only one of them
      was alive when the charge-sheet was filed. Further, it was stated
• E that when the charges were sought to be framed, no publlc
      servant was alive, hence, no'l;narges under the PC Act could
      be framed. In the absence of any offence under the PC Act,
      the Special Judge could not have tried the offences levelled
      against the accused persons under the IPC. The application
  F was, however, opposed by CBI stating that even though the sole
      public servant had died, the offence levelled against the
      accused persons could be tried by the Special Judge.

          13. The Special Judge, after hearing the parties, passed
     the following order:
 G
           "9. On going through the above ratios, it can be said that
           the existence of public servant for facing trial before the
           Special Court is must and in his absence, private person
           cannot be tried by Special Court. In present case, the sole
 H         public servant died during the pendency of this case. The
                                                            .
                                                            >
                                                                  .
                                                                _..,.




  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                  639
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    charge is not framed. The accused Nos. 2 to 8 are private A
    persons facing trial for the offences punishable under
    Section 409 r/w 120-B of IPC. The said offences are
    triable by the Court of Chief Metropolitan. Magistrate.
    Therefore, the case is required to be sent to Court of Chief
    Metropolitan Magistrate for trial as per the law. With this, t s
    pass the following order:-

                             ORDER

          Misc. Application (Exh. 18) is allowed.
                                                                        c
           Registrar (S} is directed to send case papers of Spl.
    Case No.88 of 2001 to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for
    trial of accused according to law within period of four
    weeks from the date of this order.

          Misc. Application (Exh.18) stands disposed of.                D

                                                   Sd/- 5.2.09
                                                (S.P. Tavade}
                                 Special Judge for CBI Cases
                                            Greater Mumbai."            E

     14. CBI, aggrieved by the said order, preferred Criminal
Revision Application No. 389/2009 before the Bombay High
Court. The High Court took the view that the jurisdiction
conferred on the Special Judge is not divested on the death of F
an accused. The High Court held that, upon death, the case
against that public servant alone abates and the rest of them ·
can be proceeded against by the Special Judge, since the'·
Court, once vested with the jurisdiction, cannot be divested of
it on the death of a public servant. Consequently, the order G
passed by the Special Judge was set aside and the Special
Judge, CBI, Bombay was directed to continue with the trial of
the case. Aggrieved by the same, Criminal Appeal No. 161 of
2011 has been preferred by A-2.

    15. Shri P.P. Malhotra. learned Additional Solicitor General        H
    640     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A   appearing for CBI in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008, referred
    to Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the PC Act and submitted that
    irrespective of whether the offence mentioned in Section 3(1)
    was committed by a public servant or a private person,
    individually or jointly, trial could be conducted only by the
B   Special Judge who is conferred with the jurisdiction by the
    Central Government or the State Government, as the case may
     be, under the PC Act. Shri Malhotra submitted that on the death
     of a public servant, the jurisdiction once vested on the Special
     Judge cannot be divested. Further, it was also pointed out that
c    once the public servant dies, the charge against him alone would
     abate, but the jurisdiction of the Court would not be divested. It
     was stated that the direction issued by the High Court was
     contrary to the statutory provisions and settled principles of law
     and is liable to be set aside.
D      . 16. Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel
    appearing for the CBI in Criminal Appeal no. 161 of 2011,
    highlighted the objects and reasons of the PC Act and
    submitted that once the jurisdiction to try the offence under the
    PC Act, as well as the offence under IPC, has been conferred
E   on a Special Judge, it cannot be divested by the act of parties,
    even on the death of a public servant.

         17. Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel and amicus curiae,
    submitted that once jurisdiction is conferred on a Special
F   Judge, it cannot be divested by the subsequent events and on
    death of the public servant only the charge against him will
    abate, but the jurisdiction of the Special Judge will not be
    divested.

         18. Shri Kawai Nain, learned counsel appearing for the
G   respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008, also traced
    the legislative history of the PC Act as well as the jurisdiction
    of the ordinary Criminal Court under the Code, with specific
    reference to Section 3 of the PC Act read with Section
    13(1 )(d)(i)(ii) of the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC.
H   Learned counsel pointed out that the charge against public
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                    641
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
servant under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) has abated on his death, A
consequently, it would not be possible for the Special Judge
to try any offence as against the respondents, since both are
intrinsically interlinked. Learned counsel pointed out that to
establish an bffence of conspiracy, there must be two or more
persons as stated in Section 120A IPC.                         B

      19. Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011, has taken
the stand that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction under
Section 4(3) of the PC Act to try the offences punishable under
Section 409 read with Section 1208 IPC against the appellant,        C
since there is no public servant in the array of accused persons.
Learned senior counsel submitted, assuming that the Special
Judge has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act, still
the Special Judge has the discretion to decide as to whether
he should try any offence, other than the offence specified in       D
Section 3 of the PC Act. It was pointed out that the jurisdiction
of the Special Judge to try offences specified under Sections
3(a) and (b) is not only in respect of offences punishable under
the PC Act, but also non-PC offences in view of Section 4(3)
of the PC Act, which is only an enabling provision. Further, it      E
was also pointed out that when exclusive jurisdiction is conferred
on the Special Judge, while trying offences under Section
3(1)(a) and (b) against public servant as well as the private
 persons, the discretion is also conferred on the Special Judge
 under Section 4(3) to try non-PC offences as well against           F
 private persons. On the basis of the above legal premises,
 learned senior counsel pointed out that, in the instant case,
since no charges have been framed against the public servant
 under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and that the public servant is
 no more, the discretion exercised by the Special Judge under        G
 Section 4(3) of the PC Act should not have been interfered with
 by the High Court.

     20. We may, before examining the rival contentions raised
by the parties, deal with the objects and reasons for enacting       H
    642      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A   the PC Act. The Indian Penal Code has provided for
    punishment for the offence of bribery and corruption even
    against the public servants. Parliament, in its wisdom, noticed
    that the Penal Code was not adequate to meet the exigencies
    of time and a need was felt to introduce a special legislation
B   with a view to eradicate the evil of bribery and corruption from
    the society. Consequently, the Prevention of Corruption Act,
    1947 was enacted, which was amended in the year 1964,
    based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee.
    Parliament still felt that the anti-corruption laws should be made
c   more effective, by widening their coverage and enhancing
    penalties and to expedite the proceedings and hence the 1988
    Act was enacted.

        21. Chapter II of the PC Act deals with the appointment of
    Special Judges and Chapter Ill deals with the offences and
D   penalties. Section 3 of the PC Act deals with the power ·to
    appoint Special Judges, which is extracted hereunder for an
    easy reference:

          "3. Power to appoint special Judges.- (1) The Central
E         Government or the State Government 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 the following offences, namely:-
F          (a)   any offence punishable under this Act; and

           (b}   any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit
                 or any abetment of any of the offen·ces specified in
                 clause (a}.
G
          (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a
          special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a
          Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an
          Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal
          Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."
H
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                   643
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    Section 4 of the PC Act deals with the cases triable by         A
    Special Judges. The same is also extracted below:

    "4. Cases triable by special Judges.- (1)
    Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the        8
    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 C
   · 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.
                                                                    D
           (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also
    try any offence, other than an offence specified in section
    3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 (2of1974), be charged at the same trial.

           (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code       E
    of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (2 of 1974), a special Judge
    shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on
    day- to- day basis."

    Section 5 q_f the PC Act deals with· the procedure and          F
powers of Special Judge. The same also has some relevance
and is extracted below for an easy reference:

    "5. Procedure and powers of special Judge.- (1) A
    special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the
    accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the G
    accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by
    the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the
    trial of warrant case by Magistrates.

                                                                    H
     644      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A                (2) A special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the
           evidence of any person supposed to have been directly
           or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence, tender a
           pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and
           true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his
B          knowledge relating to the offence and to ey~ry other person
           concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the
           commission thereof and any pardon so tendered shall, for
           the purposes of sub- sections (1) to (5) of section 308 of
           the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be
c          deemed to have been tendered under section 307 of that
           Code.

                 (3) Save as provided in sub- section (1) or sub-
           section (2), the provisions of the Code of Criminal
           Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 .), shall, so far as they are not
D          inconsistent with this Act, apply to the proceedings before
           a special Judge; and for the purposes of the said
           provisions, the Court of the special Judge shall be deemed
           to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a
           prosecution before a special Judge shall be deemed to
E          be a public prosecutor.

                 (4) In particular and without prejudice to the
           generality of the provisions contained in sub- section (3),
           the provisions of sections 326 and 457 of the Code of
F          Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974), shall, so far as may
           be, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge and
           for the p.urposes of the said provisions, a special Judge
           shall be deemed to be a Magistrate.

                 (5) A special Judge may pass upon any person
G          convicted by him any sentence authorised by law for the
           punishment of the offence of which such person is
           convicted.

                 (6) A special Judge, while trying an offence
H,         puni~hable, under this Act, shall exercise all the powers
   STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                   645
     KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the          A
    Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord. 38 of
    1944)."

     22. Section 3(1) of the PC Act confers power on the
Central Government or the State Government to appoint as
                                                                     8
many Special Judges as may be necessary, for such area or
areas or for such cases or group of cases as will be specified
in the notification to be issued in the Official Gazette. The
Special Judge is so empowered to try any offence punishable
under Section 3(1 )(a) of the PC Act. The Special Judge is also      C
empowered to try under Section 3(1)(b) any conspiracy to
commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the
offences specified in clause (a). To make it more precise,
following offences would come within the scope of Section 3(1)
of the PC Act:
                                                                     D
      (1)   Any offence punishable under the PC Act.

      (2)   Any conspiracy to commit any offence punishable
            under the PC Act.

      (3)   Any attempt to commit any offence punishable             E
            under the PC Act.

      (4)   Any abetment of any offence punishable under the
            PC Act.
                                                                     F
     23. Let us examine what are the offences specified in
Clause (a) of Section 3(1) of the PC Act, for which reference
has to be made to Chapter Ill of the PC Act.

     24. Section 7 of the PC Act refers to offences dealing with
public servant taking gratification, oth~r than the legal            G
remuneration in re'spect of an official act. Section 10 deals with
punishment for abetm~nt by a public servant of offences defined
in Sections 8 and 9. Section 11 of the PC Act refers to an
offence of a public servant obtaining valuable thing, without
consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business        H
    646      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A   transacted by such public servant. Offences under Sections 7,
    10 and 11 can be committed only by the public servant, though
    an offence under Section 7 can also be committed by a person
    expected to be a p·ublic servant. An offence under Section 7
    or 11 could also be abetted by a non-public servant, for which
B   punishment has been prescribed under Section 12 of the PC
    Act. Section 8 deals with the taking gratification, by corrupt or
    illegal means, to influence public servant. Section 9 deals with
    taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public
    servant. Offences under Sections 8 and 9 can be committed
c   by a person who need not necessarily be a public servant. An
    offence under Sections 8, 9 or 12 can be committed by a public
    servant or by a private person or by combination of both.
    Section 13 deals with the criminal misconduct by a public
    servant, which is exclusively an offence against the public
    servant relating to criminal misconduct. An offence under
0
    Sections 13 is made punishable under Section 15 of the PC
    Act. The above discussion would indicate that a public servant
    as well as a non-public servant can commit offences
    punishable under the PC Act.

E        25. A Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) of the
    PC Act has got jurisdiction to proceed exclusively against a
    public servant and exclusively against a non-public servant as
    well, depending upon the nature of the offence referred to in
    Chapter Ill of the PC Act. Junction of a public servant is not a
F must for the Special Judge to proceed against a non-public
  · servant for any offence alleged to have been committed by him
    under Chapter Ill of the PC Act. As already indicated, an
    offence under Section 8 or Section 9 can be committed by non-
    public servant and he can be proceeded against under the PC
G Act without joinder of any public servant. For example:

                 Section 7 of the Act uses the words "Whoever,
                 being, or expecting to be a public servant. ... "

                 Sections 10 and 11 of the Act use the words
H                "Whoever, being a public servant.. .. ".
            -
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                   647
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

           Section 13 uses the words "A public servant is said      A
           to commit.. ... ".

     26. Thus, offences under Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the
PC Act can be committed by a public servant though an offence
under Section 7 can be committed also by a "person expected         B
to be a public servant". On the other hand:

           Section 8 uses the words ''whoever. .. ", simpliciter,
           without using any other qualifying words.

           Likewise, Sections 9 and 12 also use the words C
           "whoever. .. " simpliciter.

     27. Thus, an offence under Sections 8, 9 or 12 can be
committed by any person, who need not necessarily be a public
servant. Such an offence can, therefore, be committed by a
                                                               0
public servant or by a private person or by a combination of
the two. It is thus clear that an offence under the PC Act can
be committed by either a public servant or a private person or
a combination of both and in view of the mandate· of Section
4(1) of the PC Act, read with Section 3(1) thereof, such
offences can be tried only by a Special Judge.                 E

    For example:

           A private person offering a bribe to a public servant
           commits an offence under Section 12 of Act. This         F
           offence can be tried only by the Special Judge,
           notwithstanding the fact that only a private person
           is the accused in the case and that there is no
           public servant named as an accused in that case.

           A private person can be the only accused person G
           in an offence under Section 8 or Section 9 of the
           said Act. And it is not necessary that a public
           servant should also be specifically named as an
           accused in the same case. Notwithstanding the fact
           that a private person is the only accused in an H
    648      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A               offence under Section 8 or Section 9, it can be tried
                only by a Special Judge.

         28. Thus, the scheme of the PC Act makes it quite clear
    that even a private person who is involved in an offence
    mentioned in Section 3(1) of the PC Act, is required to be tried
8
    only by a Special Judge, and by no other Coyrt. Moreover, it is
    not necessary that in every offence under the PC Act, a public
    servant must necessarily be an accused. In other words, the
    existence of a public servant for facing the trial before the
    Special Court is not a must and even in his absence, private
C   persons can be tried for PC as well as non-PC offences,
    depending upon the facts of the case.

         29. We, therefore, make it clear that it is not the law that
    only along with the junction of a public servant in array of parties,
D   the Special Judge can proceed against private persons who
    have committed offences punishable under the PC Act.

         30. Sections 3(1)(a) and (b), it may be noted, deal with only
    the offences punishable under the PC Act and not any offence
E   punishable under IPC or any other law and Section 4(1) of the
    PC Act makes it more explicit.

          31. Section 4( 1) of the PC Act has used a non-abstante
    clause. It says, "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
    of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974) or in any other law for
F   the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section
    (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only".
    Consequently, the offences referred to in Section 3(1) cannot
    be tried by the ordinary criminal court, since jurisdiction has
    been specifically conferred on a Special Judge appointed
G   under Section 3(1) of the PC Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 4
    also makes it clear, which says that 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
H   are more special Judges than one for such are;:i, by such one
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                   649
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central           A
Government. A conjoint reading of Section 3(1) along with
Sections 4(1) and (2) would make it amply clear that only the
Special Judge has got the jurisdiction to try the offences
specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 committed by a public
servant or a non-public servant, alone or jointly.                  B

      32. We may now examine the scope of sub-section (3) of
Section 4 of the PC Act, which indicates that "when trying any
case", which means trying any case relating to the offences
referred to in Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the PC Act for which
exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Special Judge. A         C
Special Judge, while exercising, exclusive jurisdiction, that is,
when trying any case relating to offences under Sections
3(1)(a) and (b) of the PC Act, may also try any offence other
than the offence specified iil Section 3, with which the accused
may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be charged          D
at the same trial. An accused, in a given case, may be charged
under the Code of Criminal Procedure on an offence being
committed under the IPC and the· offence specified in Section
3 of the PC Act. Criminal cases that can be tried by a Special
Judge are under the PC Act and also for the charges under           E
IPC or any other legislation. Conspiracy to commit any offence
either under the PC Act or under the IPC is a separate offence,
has to be separately charged and. tried. For example, the
conspiracy to commit offence punishable under the PC Act
itself is an offence to be tried only by a Special Judge. In Ajay   F
Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609, the Court held
as follows:

    " .... Conspiracy to commit a crime itself is punishable as
    a substantive offence and every individual offence              G
    committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and
    distinct offence to which individual offenders are liable to
    punishment, independent of the conspiracy..... "

    33. Reference may also be made to the judgments of this
Court in Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar (2009) 7 SCC 198          H
    650     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A   and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 sec 621.

        34. In other words, an accused person, either a public
  servant or non-public servant, who has been charged for an
  offence under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, could also be
  charged for an offence under IPC, in the event of which, the
8
  Special Judge has got the jurisdiction to try such offences
  against the public servant as well as against a non-public
  servant. The legal position is also settled by the Judgment of
  this Court in Vivek Gupta v. CBI and another (2003) 8 SCC
  628, wherein this Court held that a public servant who is
C charged of an offence under the provisions of the PC Act may
  also be charged by the Special Judge at the same trial of any
  offence under IPC if the same is committed in a manner
  contemplated under Section 220 of the Code. This Court also
  held, even if a non-public servant, though charged only of
D offences under Section 420 and Section 1208 read with
  Section 420 IPC, he could a_lso be tried by the Special Judge
  with the aid of sub-section (3} of Section 4 of the PC Act. We.
  fully endorse that view.

E        35. We are, however, in Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2011,
    concerned with a situation where no charge has been framed
    against the public servant, while he was alive, under Section
    3(1) nor any charge was framed against a private person for
    any offence under Section 3(1) of the PC Act. The Special
F   Judge, therefore, had no occasion to "try any case" under
    Section 3( 1) of the PC Act, either against a public servant or a
    private person, so as to try any offence other than an offence
    specified in Section 3, meaning thereby, non-PC offences
    against private person, like the appellant.
G      36. The Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) could
  exercise the powers under sub-section (3) to Section 4 to try
  non-PC offence. Therefore, trying a case by a Special Judge
  under Section 3(1) is a sine-qua-non for exercising jurisdiction
  by the Special Judge for trying any offence, other than an
H offence specified in Section 3. "Trying any case" under Section
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                     651
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge to   A
exercise powers to try any offence other than an offence
specified in Section 3.

     37. Exclusion of the jurisdiction of ordinary Criminal Court,
so far as offences under the PC Act are concerned, has been
                                                                     B
explicitly expressed under Section 4(1) of the PC Act, which
does not find a place in respect of non-PC offences in sub-
section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act. Further, it is not
obligatory on the part of a Special Judge to try non-PC
offences. The expression "may also try" gives an element of
discretion on the part of the Special Judge which will depend        C
upon the facts of each case and the inter-relation between PC
offences and non-PC .offences.

     38. A Special Judge exercising powers under the PC Act
is not expected to try non-PC offences totally unconnected with      D
any PC offences under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and in the
event of a Special Judge not trying any offence under Section
3(1) of the PC Act, the question of the Special Judge trying non-
PC offences does not arise. As already indicated, trying of a
PC offence is a jurisdictional fact to exercise the powers under     E
Sub-section (3) of Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge,
as such, has not been divested, but the exercise of jurisdiction,
depends upon the jurisdictional fact of trying a PC offence. We
are, therefore, concerned with the exercise of jurisdiction and
not the existence of jurisdiction of the Special Judge.              F

      39. The meaning and content of the expression
"jurisdictional fact" has been considered by this Court in Carona
Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons (2007) 8 SCC 559, and
noticed that where the jurisdiction of a Court or a Tribunal is
dependent on the existence of a particular state of affairs, that    G
state of affairs may be described as preliminary to, or collective
to the merits of the issue. Existence of a jurisdictional fact is
thus a sine qua non or condition precedent to the assumption
of jurisdiction by a Court. In Ramesh Chandra Sank/a v.
Vikram Cement & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 58, this Court held that          H
    652      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A   by erroneously assuming existence of the jurisdictional fact, a
    Court cannot confer upon itself jurisdiction which otherwise it
    does not possess.

       40. We have already indicated that the jurisdictional fact
B so as to try non-PC offences is "trying any case" under the PC
  Act. As noticed by this Court in Rafi/a/ Bhanji Mithani v. State
  of Maharashtra (1979) 2 sec 179, the trial of a warrant case
  starts with the framing of charge. Prior to that the proceedings
  are only an inquiry. The Court held as follows:-

c         "Once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power
          under Section 227 or any other provision of the Code to
          cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the
          stage of Section 253 and discharge the accused. The trial
          in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior
D         to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing
          of the charge if the accused pleads not guilty, the
          Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the
          manner provided in Sections 254 to 258 to a logical end.
          Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, instituted either
E         on complaint or a police report, the Magistrate has no
          power under the Code to discharge the accused, and
          thereafter, he can either acquit or convict the accused
          unless he decides to proceed under Section 349 and 562
          of the Code of 1898 (which correspond to Sections 325
F         and 360 of the Code of 1973)."

       41. We may now examine whether, in both these appeals,
  the above test has been satisfied. First, we may deal with
  Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008. CBI, in this appeal, as
  already indicated, submitted the charge-sheet on 1.11.2001 for
G the offences against A-1, who is a public servant, as well as
  against non-public servants. Learned Special Judge had, on
  25.3.2003, framed the charges against the accused persons
  under Section 1208 read Sections with 467, 471 and 420 IPC
  and also under Sections 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act and
H substantive offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC and
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                     653
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
also substantive offences under Sections 1~1 )(d) and 13(2)           A
of the PC Act against the public servants. Therefore, charges
have been framed against the public servants as well as non-
public servants after hearing the prosecution and defence
counsel, by the special Judge on 25.3.2003 in respect of PC
offences as well as non-PC offences. As already indicated,            B
under sub-section (3) of Section 4, when trying any case, a
Special Judge may also try any offence other than the offence
specified in Section 3 and be charged in the same trial. The
Special Judge, in the instant case, has framed charges against
the public servant as well as against the non-public servant for      c
offences punishable under Section 3(1) of PC Act as well as
for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with
Sections 467, 471 and 420 IPC and, therefore, the existence
of jurisdictional fact that is "trying a case" under the PC Act has
been satisfied.                                                       D
     42. The Special Judge after framing the charge for PC and
non-PC offences posted the case for examination of
prosecution witnesses, thereafter the sole public servant died
on 2.6.2003. Before that, the Special Judge, in the instant
case, has also exercised his powers under sub-section (3) of          E
Section 4 of the PC Act and hence cannot be divested with the
jurisdiction to proceed against the non-public servant, even if
the sole public servant d.ies after framing of the charges. On
death, the charge against the public servant alone abates and
since the special Judge has already exercised his jurisdiction        F
under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act, that
jurisdiction cannot be divested due to the death of the sole
public servant.

     43. We can visualize a situation where a public servant          G
dies at the fag end of the trial, by that time, several witnesses
might have been examined and to hold that the entire trial would
be vitiated due to death of a sole public servant would defeat
the entire object and purpose of the PC Act, which is enacted
for effective combating of corruption and to expedite cases
                                                                      H
    654      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 2 S.C.R.


A related to corruption and bribery. The purpose of the PC Act
  is to make anti-corruption laws more effective in order to
  expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial of
  cases, transparency with regard to grant of stay and exercise
  of powers of revision on interlocutory orders have also been
B provided under the PC Act. Consequently, once the power has
  been exercised by the Special Judge under sub-section (3) of
  Section 4 of the PC 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)
c of Section 4, will not divest the jurisdiction of the Special Judge
  or vitiate the proceedings pending before him.

       44. We are, therefore, inclined to allow Criminal Appeal
  No. 943 of 2008 and set aside the order of the High Court and
  direct the Special Judge to complete the trial of the cases within
D a period of six months.

       45. We may now examine Criminal Appeal No. ~61 of
  2011, where the FIR was registered on 2. 7 .1996 and the
  charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge ~n 14.9.2001
E for the offences under Sections 1208, 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 publi<Aservant under the PC Act
  could also not be framed since he died on 18.2.2005. The
F 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-
G 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 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
H
  STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHI v. JITENDER                    655
    KUMAR SINGH [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Section 4 of PC Act. In the instant case, since no PC offence        A
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            B
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-PC offences.

     46. Consequently, we find no error in the view taken by the
Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai in forwarding the case            C
papers of Special Case No. 88 of 2001 in the Court of 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 the Special Case No. 88
of 2001 is forwarded, is directed to dispose of the same within      D
a period of six months. Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011 is
allowed accordingly.

D.G.                                           Appeals allowed.