2025:HHC:22699 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 320 of 2025 Reserved on: 2.7.2025 Date of Decision: 15.7.2025. Natha Singh Sidhu ...Petitioner Versus CBI ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the order dated 11.4.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Shimla (learned Trial Court), vide which the application filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) seeking his discharge was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:22699 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the CBI filed a final report before the learned Trial Court against the accused and other persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7 and 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It was asserted that the informant Ketan Kumar T. Parsanna made a complaint to the CBI regarding the demand for a bribe made by the accused N.S. Sidhu, an Insurance Surveyor. He asserted that he and his brother were running a Factory in the name and style of M/s Savy Go Electric Vehicles Industries at Parwanoo, which was insured for ₹1.5 crores from New India Assurance Company, Chandigarh. The Factory caught fire on 19.5.2010, and an insurance claim was lodged. N.S. Sidhu was deputed as a Surveyor who submitted his report, and the claim was rejected. The informant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which passed an order directing the payment of ₹44,17,212/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till realisation. The informant contacted N.S. Sidhu for enquiring about the procedure for getting the claim. N.S. Sidhu said that J.K. Mittal, 3 2025:HHC:22699 General Manager, New India Assurance Company, was known to him. The matter would be processed, and no further proceedings would be taken to challenge the order passed by the NCDRC. He demanded ₹12.00 lacs for the release of the amount. He said that ₹1.00 lakh was already paid to J.K. Mittal on behalf of the informant. 3. The informant made a complaint to the CBI. CBI laid a trap and asked the informant to pay ₹5.00 lacs smeared with phenolphthalein powder to N.S. Sidhu. The informant went to Sagar Ratna Restaurant located in Sector-17, Chandigarh, and handed over ₹5.00 lacs as demanded. The trap was sprung; N.S. Sidhu was caught red-handed with the bribe money. His hands were washed, and the hand wash turned pink. N.S. Sidhu informed J.K. Mittal about the receipt of the bribe money. CBI arrested J.K. Mittal, applied for the prosecution sanction and filed the charge sheet before the Court. 4. The accused filed separate applications for seeking their discharge. It was contended before the learned Trial Court that the Courts at Shimla had no territorial jurisdiction as the incident had taken place in Chandigarh. It was held by the 4 2025:HHC:22699 learned Trial Court that the informant was running the Industry in Himachal Pradesh. The complaint was verified at Shimla. When the demand was made, the informant was at Shimla. Therefore, the Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The material on record was sufficient to frame the charges, and the accused could not be discharged. Consequently, the applications were dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present revision has been filed. 6. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI. 7. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner is not shying away from the trial and is aggrieved by the fact that the CBI Court at Shimla had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. As per the CBI, the petitioner was residing in Chandigarh, so the demand was also made from Chandigarh. The informant was in Mumbai as per the transcript of the conversation. The money 5 2025:HHC:22699 was paid at Chandigarh, and the petitioner was caught at Chandigarh. The Courts at Chandigarh and not at Shimla would have jurisdiction. The version of the CBI that the petitioner was at Shimla is highly doubtful; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the charge sheet be ordered to be returned to the CBI for presentation before the appropriate Court. He relied upon the judgment of CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad (2001) 9 SCC 432 in support of his submission. 8. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, submitted that as per the verification report, the informant was at Shimla when the call was received. The offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act requires a demand. Since the demand was received at Shimla, therefore, the Courts at Shimla had jurisdiction. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 in support of his submission. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, that the demand of illegal 6 2025:HHC:22699 gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the offence punishable under Section 7, and mere recovery of currency notes is not an offence. It was observed: - 7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration, reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 1: (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009) 3 SCC 779: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. 11. In the present case, the petitioner/accused is residing at Chandigarh. He never visited Shimla. So, the demand was made from Chandigarh. The mere fact that the informant happened to be at Shimla will not confer jurisdiction at Shimla because it is the demand which constitutes the offence and not the receipt of the demand. Therefore, the residence of the informant is irrelevant for determining jurisdiction. 12. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, (2001) 9 SCC 432, that Section 4 of the PC Act overrides the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Courts 7 2025:HHC:22699 where the offence is committed will have the territorial jurisdiction. It was observed:- 31. Section 4 of the PC Act relates to the jurisdiction of the court for the trial of offences under that Act. The first sub-section of Section 4 declares that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, the offences punishable under the PC Act can be tried “only” by the Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) of the PC Act. Now, sub-section (2) of Section 4 is the important provision, and it is extracted below: “4. (2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the Special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.” 32. Thus, the only court which has jurisdiction to try the offences under the PC Act is the Court of a Special Judge appointed for the areas within which such offences were committed. When such an offence is being tried, sub- section (3) enables the same Special Judge to try any other offence which could as well be charged against that accused in the same trial. So the pivot of the matter is to determine the area within which the offence was committed. 33. For that purpose, it is useful to look at Section 3(1) of the PC Act. It empowers the Government to appoint a Special Judge to try two categories of offences. The first is “any offence punishable under this Act” and the second is “any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified” in the first category. So when a court has jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under the PC Act on the basis of the place where such offence was committed, the allied offences such as conspiracy, attempt or abetment to 8 2025:HHC:22699 commit that offence are only to be linked with the main offence. When the main offence is committed and is required to be tried, it is rather inconceivable that jurisdiction of the court will be determined on the basis of where the conspiracy or attempt or abetment of such main offence was committed. It is only when the main offence was not committed, but only the conspiracy to commit that offence or the attempt or the abetment of it alone was committed, then the question would arise whether the Court of the Special Judge within whose area such conspiracy, etc., was committed could try the case. For our purpose, it is unnecessary to consider that aspect because the charges proceed on the assumption that the main offence was committed. 35. We have no doubt in our mind that the hub of the act envisaged in the first of those two offences is “dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates”. Similarly, the hinge of the act envisaged in the second section is “obtains” for himself or any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. 36. The above acts were completed in the present cases when the money had gone out of the public treasuries and reached the hands of any one of the persons involved. Hence, so far as the offences under Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) are concerned, the place where the offences were committed could easily be identified as the place where the treasury concerned was situated. It is an undisputed fact that in all these cases, the treasuries were situated within the territories of Jharkhand State. 37. Thus, when it is certain where exactly the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act was committed, it is an unnecessary exercise to ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities, such as conspiracy or preparation, or even the prefatory or incidental acts were done, including the consequences that ensued. 38. In this context, it is useful to refer to Section 181 of the Code, which falls within Chapter XIII, comprising 9 2025:HHC:22699 provisions regarding jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 181 pertains to “place of trial in case of certain offences”. Sub-section (4) thereof deals with the jurisdiction of the courts if the offence committed is either criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. At least four different courts have been envisaged by the sub-section having jurisdiction for the trial of the said offence, and any one of which can be chosen. They are: (1) the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed; (2) the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received; (3) the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was retained; and (4) the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused. 39. Now, observe the distinction between Section 181(4) of the Code and Section 4(2) of the PC Act. When the former provision envisaged at least four courts having jurisdiction to try a case involving misappropriation, the latter provision of the PC Act has restricted it to one court, i.e. the Court of the Special Judge for the area “within which the offence was committed”. No other court is envisaged for the trial of that offence. We pointed out above that when the charge contains the offence or offences punishable under the PC Act as well as the offence of conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or any abetment of any such offence, the court within whose local jurisdiction the main offence was committed alone has jurisdiction. 42. Thus, if the PC Act has stipulated any place for trial of the offence under that Act, the provisions of the Code would stand displaced to that extent in regard to the place of trial. We have, therefore, no doubt that when the offence is under Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the sole determinative factor regarding the court 10 2025:HHC:22699 having jurisdiction is the place where the offence was committed.” 13. In the present case, the accused was residing at Chandigarh, demand was made from Chandigarh, the trap was laid at Chandigarh, money was paid and recovered at Chandigarh; therefore, the Courts at Chandigarh and not the Court at Shimla will have jurisdiction. Hence, the submission that the Court at Shimla had no territorial jurisdiction has to be upheld. 14. Consequently, the present revision is accepted. Final report submitted by CBI is ordered to be returned to the CBI for presentation before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction qua the petitioner. 15. With the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15th July, 2025 (Chander)