ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. vs. REGR.GEN.DELHI HIGH COURT .

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No. 57 OF 2012 ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD.      … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL,  DELHI HIGH COURT  & ORS.    … RESPONDENTS With WRIT PETITION (C) No. 59 OF 2012 LOOP TELECOM LTD.        … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL,  DELHI HIGH COURT  & ORS.        … RESPONDENTS With WRIT PETITION (C) No. 96 OF 2012 JUDGMENT VIKASH SARAF           … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL,  DELHI HIGH COURT  & ORS.        … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. st  Feeling   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   21 December, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Central  Page 1 2 Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi taking cognizance  against   the   petitioners,   they   have   preferred   these  st  writ petitions challenging the said order dated 21 th December, 2011, Administrative Order dated 15  March,  2011 passed by the Delhi High Court and Notification  th dated   28   March,  2011   passed  by   the  Government  of  National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short ‘NCT  of   Delhi’)   designating   Mr.   Om   Prakash   Saini   as  Special   Judge   to   undertake   the   trial   of   cases   in  relation   to   all   matters   pertaining   to   2G   Spectrum  case (commonly known as 2G Scam case) exclusively.  One   of   the   writ   petitions   has   been   filed   by   an  individual   and   two   other   writ   petitions   have   been  preferred by two Companies who are all accused in 2G  Scam case.  2. The factual matrix of the case is given in brief  JUDGMENT as under: Acting on various complaints pursuant to grant  of   UAS   licences   in   2008,   the   Central   Vigilance  Commission   after   conducting   a   preliminary   inquiry  entrusted   investigation   of   the   case   to   the   CBI.  After preliminary investigation, on 21.10.2009, the  CBI   lodged   FIR   RC   No.   DAI­2009­A­0045   against  “unknown   officers   of   the   Department   of  Page 2 3 Telecommunications   and   unknown   private  persons/companies   and   others”   for   causing   wrongful  loss   to   the   Government   by   criminal   misconduct   and  criminal conspiracy in distribution of UAS licences  in January, 2008.   Subsequently, a Public Interest  Litigation was filed before the Delhi High Court, in  Writ   Petition   (C)   No.3522   of   2010,   inter   alia,  alleging that the FIR filed by the CBI on 21.10.2009  was not being investigated and thereby praying that  the CBI be directed to investigate the same.   The  said writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High  Court on 25.5.2010.  3. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner  of   the   said   case,     Centre   for   Public   Interest  Litigation (for short, ‘CPIL’), filed SLP(C) No.24873  JUDGMENT th  of   2010,   wherein   this   Court   by   order   dated   16 December, 2010 granted leave (C.A.No.10660 of 2010)  and decided to monitor the investigation, [ reported  in (2011) 1 SCC 560 ].    4. In the said case by order dated 10.2.2011, this  Court indicated that a separate Special Court should  be   established   to   try   the   case(s)   relating   to   2G  Page 3 4 Spectrum. The said part of the above order is quoted  hereunder: “We   also   indicated   to   the   learned   Attorney  General that a separate Special Court should be  established to try the case(s) relating to 2G  Spectrum.     The   learned   Attorney   General  responded   to   this   by   stating   that   he   may   be  given two weeks’ time to consult the concerned  authorities   and   make   a   statement   on   this  issue.” 5. Pursuant   to   aforesaid   observation,   the   Delhi  High   Court   issued   impugned   Administrative   order  dated 15.3.2011 nominating one  Mr. Om Prakash  Saini  as Special Judge to try cases of 2G Scam exclusively.  6. Another   order   was   passed   by   this   Court   on  16.3.2011 inter alia directing; “At   the   commencement   of   hearing,   learned  Attorney General placed before the Court letter  dated 14.03.2011 sent to him by the Registrar  General   of   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   conveying  the   decision   taken   by   the   High   Court   to  nominate Shri O.P. Saini, an officer of Delhi  Higher   Judicial   Service,   who   is   presently  posted as Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)­2, New  Delhi,   Patiala   House   Courts   as   the   Special  Judge   to   undertake   the   trial   of   cases   in  relation to all matters pertaining to what has  been described as 2G Scam exclusively. JUDGMENT Learned Attorney General gave out that he would  ensure   that   two   separate   notifications   are  issued   by   the   Central   Government   in   terms   of  Section   3(1)   of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption  Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the Prevention  of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment  of   the   Special   Court   to   exclusively   try   the  offences pertaining to what has been termed as  2G Scam and other related offences.     Learned  Attorney   General   submitted   that   appropriate  Page 4 5 notifications   will   be   issued   on   or   before  29.3.2011.”     7. Pursuant to the abovesaid order the Government  of N.C.T. of Delhi exercising its power under Section  3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for  short “the PC Act”) by notification dated 28.3.2011  designated Mr. Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge to  undertake   the   trial   of   cases   in   relation   to   all  matters pertaining to 2G Scam case exclusively.    8. Administrative   side   of   the   Delhi   High   Court,  thereafter,   issued   an   allocation   list   on   1.4.2011  whereby Mr. Om Prakash Saini (P.C. Act) (CBI­4) PHC  was designated as Special Judge in a new court to  deal   with   matters   pertaining   to   the   2G   Scam   cases  exclusively.   nd 9. CBI initially filed a charge sheet on 2  April,  JUDGMENT 2011 against nine accused persons and thereafter on  th 25   April,   2011   filed   a   supplementary   chargesheet  against some more accused persons.   No allegations  were   made   against   the   petitioners   in   any   of   the  chargesheets.     Therefore,   they   were   not   shown   as  accused.   Page 5 6 10. In the 2G Scam case this Court vide order dated  11.4.2011 while appointing the learned Special Public  Prosecutor ordered as follows:  “We   also   make   it   clear   that   any  objection   about   the   appointment   of  Special   Public   Prosecutor   or   his  assistant   advocates   or   any   prayer  for staying or impeding the progress  of the Trial can be made only before  this Court and no other Court shall  entertain the same.   The trial must  proceed on a day­a­day basis.”   11. Subsequently, the CBI filed second supplementary  chargesheet on 12.12.2011 against the petitioner(s)  and other accused persons for the alleged commission  of offences under Section 420/120­B IPC.  No offences  under   the   PC   Act   have   been   alleged   against   the  petitioner(s) and other accused persons arraigned in  the   second   supplementary   chargesheet.   Based   on   the  same,   the   learned   Special   Judge   by   impugned   order  JUDGMENT dated 21.12.2011 was pleased to take cognizance of  the second supplementary chargesheet dated 12.12.2011  and the petitioner(s) and others were summoned.   12. According to the petitioner(s), the CBI in its  chargesheet   dated   12.12.2011   admits   that   the  chargesheet   is   being   filed   “   regarding   a   separate  offence”  under Section 420/120­B IPC. In paragraphs  73 and 74 of the said chargesheet whilst admitting  Page 6 7 that   the   offences   alleged   in   the   chargesheet   are  triable   by   a   Magistrate,   the   CBI   relying   on   the  notification   dated   28.3.2011   requested   the   Special  Judge to take cognizance of the matter. Paragraphs 73  and 74 of the chargesheet read as under: “ 73.  This final report under Section 173(8) Cr.  P.C.   is   being   filed   regarding   a   separate  offence   which   came   to   notice   during  investigation of the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045  (2G   Spectrum   Case),which   is   pending   before  Hon’ble   Special   Judge   (2G   Spectrum   Cases),  Patiala   House   Courts,   New   Delhi   and   a   final  report dated 02.04.2011 and supplementary final  report dated 25.04.2011 were earlier filed in  the same FIR. 74. In terms of the Notification No.6/05/2011­ Judl./363­367 dated 28.03.2011 issued by Govt.  of   NCT   of   Delhi   this   Hon’ble   Court   has   been  designated to undertake the trial of cases in  relation to all matters pertaining to 2G Scam  exclusively in pursuance of the orders of the  Supreme   Court,   although   offences   alleged   to  have been committed by accused persons sent up  for   trial   are   triable   by   the   Magistrate   of  first   class.     It   is,   therefore,   prayed   that  cognizance   of   the   aforesaid   offences   may   be  taken or the final report may be endorsed  to  any other appropriate court as deemed fit and  thereafter process may be issued to the accused  persons   for   their   appearance   and   to   face   the  trial as per Law.” JUDGMENT 13. The   learned   Special   Judge,   thereafter,   took  cognizance vide impugned order dated 21.12.2011. The  relevant portion of the said impugned order reads as  under: “2.   Ld.   Spl.   PP   further   submits   that   the  accused have been charged with the commission  Page 7 8 of offence, which are triable, by the Court of  Metropolitan   Magistrate.     It   is   further  submitted that this second supplementary charge  sheet also arises from the aforesaid RC bearing  No.DAI2009A0045/CBI/ACB/ND,   titled   as   CBI   v.  A.Raja   &   others,   arose   and   is   pending   trial.  He   further   submits   that   since   this   case   also  arises from the same FIR, it is to be tried by  this Court alone.   He has further  invited  my  attention to an order dated 15.03.2011, passed  by   the   Hon’ble   High   Court,   whereby   the  undersigned was nominated as Special Judge by  the Hon’ble High Court to exclusively try cases  of 2G Scam.   3.   Accordingly,   the   trial   of   this   second  supplementary   charge   sheet   shall   be   held   in  this   Court.     A   copy   of   the   order   dated  15.03.2011 be placed on the file.” ` 14. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner(s)   assailed  the impugned Administrative Order passed by the Delhi  th High Court dated 15  March, 2011 and the Notification  th dated 28  March, 2011 issued by the Government of NCT  Delhi on the following grounds: ) The impugned notification travels beyond the provisions of the Cr.PC. (a JUDGMENT The Cr.PC mandates that offences under the IPC ought to be tried as per its provisions. ( b) It has been held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of CBI v. Keshub Mahindra reported in ( 2011) 6 SCC 216 that, “No decision by any court, this Court not excluded, can be read in a manner as to nullify the express provisions of an Act or the Code.” Thus, the Administrative order and Notification are contrary to the well-settled provisions of law and ought to be set aside in so far as they confer jurisdiction on a Special Judge to take cognizance and hold trial of matters not pertaining to PC Act offences. Page 8 9 (c) . If the offence of Section 420 IPC, which ought to be tried by a Magistrate, is to be tried by a Court of Sessions, a variety of valuable rights of the petitioner would be jeopardised. This would be contrary to the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in ( 1988) 2 SCC 602 , wherein it was acknowledged that the right to appeal is a valuable right and the loss of such a right is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. Mr. Harin P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor  of   India   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   CBI   made   the  following submissions: a) . The orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the setting up of the Special Court for 2G Scam cases were pursuant to its powers under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, which made it clear that all the cases arising out of this Scam would be tried by the Special Court so constituted. JUDGMENT b) . The Administrative Order of the High Court of Delhi setting up the Special Court is pursuant to its powers under Section 194 Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court to direct, by special or general order, an additional Sessions Judge to try certain cases. Section 194 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced as below:- “ Section   194.   Additional   and  Assistant   Sessions   Judges   to   try  cases   made   over   to   them­   An  Additional   Sessions   Judge   or  Assistant   Sessions   Judge   shall   try  such cases as the Sessions Judge of  Page 9 10 the   division   may,   by   general   or  special order, make over to him for  trial   or   as   the   High   Court   may,   by  special order, direct him to try.” c) Both Section 4(3) of the PC Act and Section 43(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 empower the Special Court to try any other offences that may be taken cognizance of under the Cr.P.C.. In this view of events, the cognizance taken by the Special Court of the charge-sheet filed against the accused was valid. d) The Second Supplementary charge-sheet which makes out offences against the present accused arises out of FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 registered by the CBI on 21.10.2009, out of which the earlier charge-sheets have been filed, and cognizance taken by the Special Court. An anomalous situation would be created if various accused charged with offences arising out of the same FIR were to be tried by different courts on the flimsy ground that some of them are only charged of offences arising out of the IPC and not the special statutes under JUDGMENT which other charges are laid. e) Higher courts can try an offence in view of Section 26 of Cr.P.C. and no prejudice should be caused if the case is tried by a Special Judge. By virtue of Administrative Order passed by the Delhi High court and Notification issued by the Government of NCT, Delhi, the learned Special Judge is not divested of his jurisdiction which he otherwise possesses under Section 26 of the Cr.P.C. to try offence under IPC. The Section reads as follows: Page 10 11 “26.   Courts   by   which   offences   are  triable.­        Subject to the other  provisions of this Code,­ (a) Any offence under the Indian  Penal   Code   (45   of   1860)   may   be  tried by ­ (i) The High Court, or (ii) The Court of Session,  or (iii) Any other court by  which such offence is shown  in the First Schedule to be  triable; (b)  Any offence under any other  law   shall,     when   any   Court   is  mentioned in this behalf in such  law,  be tried by such Court and  when   no   court   is   so   mentioned,  may be tried by – (i) The High Court, or (ii)Any   other   court   by   which  such offence is shown in the  First   Schedule   to   be  triable.” 16. Mr.   Prashant   Bhushan,   learned   counsel   for   the  JUDGMENT CPIL, submitted that a Special Judge has the power to  try offences under the IPC and no challenge can be  made   against   this   power.   It   was   further   submitted  that in view of the order passed by this Court in 2G  Scam   case,   it   is   not   open   to   the   petitioners   to  approach any other Court to commence the trial.    17. A mere perusal of Section 3 read with Section 4  of the PC Act clearly mandates that apart from an  Page 11 12 offence punishable under the PC Act,   any conspiracy  to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of  any of the offences specified under the PC Act can 

4.   Cases   triable   by   special   Judges   ­   (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in  Page 12 13 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.     

the   Cr.P.C.,   shall   in   their   application   to   any  JUDGMENT proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under  the Act to apply subject to certain modifications.  It   is,   therefore,   apparent   that   provisions   of   the  Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under  the PC Act, subject to certain modifications.  

more than one offence,  i f, in one series of acts so  connected together as to form the same transaction  Page 13 14 more offence than one are committed and provides as  follows:

(2)   When   a   person   charged   with   one   or   more  offences   of   criminal   breach   of   trust   or  dishonest   misappropriation   of   properly   as  provided in sub­section (2) of section 212 or  in sub­section (1) of section 219, is accused  of committing, for the purpose of facilitating  or concealing the commission of that offence or  those   offences,   one   or   more   offences   of  falsification   of   accounts,   he   may   be   charged  with, and tried at one trial for, every such  offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence  falling within two or more separate definitions  of any law in force for the time being by which   offences   are   defined   or   punished,   the   person  accused of them may be charged with, and tried  at one trial for, each of such offences. JUDGMENT (4) If several acts, of which one or more than  one would by itself or themselves constitute an  offence, constitute when combined a different  offence,   the   person   accused   of   them   may   be  charged with, and tried at one trial for the  offence constituted by such acts when combined,  and for any offence constituted by any one, or  more, or such acts. (5)   Nothing   contained   in   this   section   shall  affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45  of 1860).” Page 14 15

in the course of the same transaction may be charged  jointly   as   per   Section   223   of   the   Cr.P.C.,   which  reads as under:  

December, 2011 was filed in the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A  Page 15 16

allegations   have   been   made   against   the   petitioners  and some others:

Page 16 17

Page 17 18 Telecommunications   during   2008­2010  alleging that M/s Loop Telecom Ltd. was  an   Essar   group   company   under   a  corporate   veil   and   was   thereby  violating   the   clause   8   of   UASL  Guidelines   dated   14.12.2005.   In   one  such matter Dot referred the matter to  Ministry   of   Corporate   Affairs   seeking  to examine the matter and open whether  the given facts and circumstances made  out a violation of the clause 8 of UASL  Guidelines.   Investigation   has   revealed  that the Deputy Director (Inspection),  Ministry   of   Corporate   Affairs,   who  examined   the   matter   in   detail,  concluded that the clause 8 of the UASL  Guidelines had been violated. .....

Page 18 19

clear that the offence alleged to have been committed 

2G Spectrum transactions, under Section 223 of Cr.  JUDGMENT P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together  with the other co­accused of 2G Scam cases.  22. In    A.R.   Antulay   v.   Ramdas   Sriniwas   Nayak.,  this Court came across a question  (1984) 2 SCC 500,  whether   a   Court   of   a   Special   Judge   for   certain  purposes   is   a   Court   of   Magistrate   or   a   Court   of  Session and held as follows: Page 19 20 “23.   Once Section 5­A is out of the way in  the matter of taking cognizance of offences  committed   by   public   servants   by   a   Special  Judge,   the   power   of   the   Special   Judge   to  take   cognizance   of   such   offences   conferred  by Section 8(1) with only one limitation, in  any   one   of   the   known   methods   of   taking  cognizance of offences by courts of original  jurisdiction   remains   undented.   One   such  statutorily recognised well­known method of  taking   cognizance   of   offences   by   a   court  competent   to   take   cognizance   is   upon  receiving   a   complaint   of   facts   which  constitutes   the   offence.   And   Section   8(1)  says that the Special Judge has the power to  take   cognizance   of   offences   enumerated   in  Section 6(1)(a) and (b) and the only mode of  taking cognizance excluded by the provision  is   upon   commitment.   It   therefore,   follows  that the Special Judge can take cognizance  of   offences   committed   by   public   servants  upon   receiving   a   complaint   of   facts  constituting such offences. 28.  Section 9 of the 1952 Act would equally  be helpful in this behalf. Once Court of a  Special   Judge   is   a   Court   of   original  criminal   jurisdiction,   it   became   necessary  to provide whether it is subordinate to the  High   Court,   whether   appeal   and   revision  against its judgments and orders would lie  to the High Court and whether the High Court  would   have   general   superintendence   over   a  Court of Special Judge as it has over all  criminal courts as enumerated in Section 6  of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court  of   a   Special   Judge,   once   created   by   an  independent statute, has been brought as a  Court   of   original   criminal   jurisdiction  under   the   High   Court   because   Section   9  confers   on   the   High   Court   all   the   powers  conferred by Chapters XXXI and XXXIII of the  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on a High  Court as if the Court of Special Judge were  a   Court   of   Session   trying   cases   without   a  jury   within   the   local   limit   of   the  jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court.   Therefore,  there is no gainsaying the fact that a new   criminal court with a name, designation and  qualification   of   the   officer   eligible   to  JUDGMENT Page 20 21 preside   over   it   with   powers   specified   and  the   particular   procedure   which   it   must  follow has been set up under the 1952 Act.   The court has to be treated as a Court of  original   criminal   jurisdiction   and   shall  have all the powers as any Court of original  criminal jurisdiction has under the Code of  Criminal   Procedure,   except   those  specifically excluded. 29.  Once the position and power of the Court  of   a   Special   Judge   in   the   hierarchy   of  criminal   courts   under   the   High   Court   is  clearly and unambiguously established, it is  unnecessary   to   roam   into   an   enquiry  examining   large   number   of   decisions   laying  down in the context of each case that the  Court   of   a   Special   Judge   is   a   Court   of  Session and the contrary view taken in some  other   decisions.   Reference   to   those  judgments   would   be   merely   adding   to   the  length   of   this   judgment   without   achieving  any useful purpose.” 23. In  Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., (2000) 2 SCC  504    this Court dealing with Section 193 of the Cr.PC  observed: “10.   Section   193   of   the   Code   has   to   be  understood   in   the   aforesaid   backdrop.   The  section imposes an interdict on all Courts  of Session against taking cognizance of any  offence as a court of original jurisdiction.  It can take cognizance only if “the case has  been   committed   to   it   by   a   Magistrate”,   as  provided in the Code. Two segments have been  indicated   in   Section   193   as   exceptions   to  the   aforesaid   interdict.   One   is,   when   the  Code   itself   has   provided   differently   in  express   language   regarding   taking   of  cognizance, and the second is when any other  law   has   provided   differently   in   express  language   regarding   taking   cognizance   of  offences   under   such   law.   The   word  “expressly” which is employed in Section 193  denoting   those   exceptions   is   indicative   of  the   legislative   mandate   that   a   Court   of  JUDGMENT Page 21 22 Session   can   depart   from   the   interdict  contained   in   the   section   only   if   it   is  provided   differently   in   clear   and  unambiguous terms. In other words, unless it  is   positively   and   specifically   provided  differently   no   Court   of   Session   can   take  cognizance of any offence directly, without  the   case   being   committed   to   it   by   a  Magistrate. 11.   Neither in the Code nor in the Act is  there any provision whatsoever, not even by  implication,   that   the   specified   Court   of  Session (Special Court) can take cognizance  of the offence under the Act as a court of  original jurisdiction without the case being  committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be  so,   there   is   no   reason   to   think   that   the  charge­sheet   or   a   complaint   can   straight  away be filed before such Special Court for  offences under the Act. It can be discerned  from   the   hierarchical   settings   of   criminal  courts that the Court of Session is given a  superior and special status. Hence we think  that the legislature would have thoughtfully  relieved the Court of Session from the work  of   performing   all   the   preliminary  formalities   which   Magistrates   have   to   do  until the case is committed to the Court of  Session. 12.   We   have   noticed   from   some   of   the  decisions   rendered   by   various   High   Courts  that   contentions   were   advanced   based   on  Sections 4 and 5 of the Code as suggesting   that   a   departure   from   Section   193   of   the  Code   is   permissible   under   special  enactments. Section 4 of the Code contains  two   sub­sections   of   which   the   first   sub­ section   is   of   no   relevance   since   it   deals  only   with   offences   under   the   Indian   Penal  Code.   However,   sub­section   (2)   deals   with  offences under other laws and hence the same  can   be   looked   into.   Sub­section   (2)   of  Section 4 is extracted below: JUDGMENT “4. (2) All offences under any other  law   shall   be   investigated,   inquired  into, tried, and otherwise dealt with  according to the same provisions, but  subject to any enactment for the time  being  in force  regulating  the  manner  Page 22 23 or   place   of   investigating,   inquiring  into, trying or otherwise dealing with  such offences.”

this   Court   in   Vivek   Gupta   v.   Central   Bureau   of  Investigation, (2003) 8 SCC 628 .   In the said case  the co­accused   were charged by Special Judge under  the provisions of the PC Act whereas the appellant  before this Court had been charged only under Section  420 IPC and under Section 120­B of the IPC, as in the  present case.   Having noticed the provisions of the  PC Act and Cr. PC as referred to above, this Court  held: “15.   This is because the co­accused of the  appellant   who   have   been   also   charged   of  offences specified in Section 3 of the Act  must be tried by the Special Judge, who in  view of the provisions of sub­section (3) of  Section 4 and Section 220 of the Code may  also   try   them   of   the   charge   under   Section  120­B   read   with   Section   420   IPC.   All   the  three accused, including the appellant, have  been   charged   of   the   offence   under   Section  120­B   read   with   Section   420   IPC.   If   the  Special   Judge   has   jurisdiction   to   try   the  co­accused   for   the   offence   under   Section  120­B   read   with   Section   420   IPC,   the  provisions   of   Section   223   are   attracted.  Therefore, it follows that the appellant who  is also charged of having committed the same  offence   in   the   course   of   the   same  transaction   may   also   be   tried   with   them.  Otherwise it appears rather incongruous that  some of the conspirators charged of having  committed the same offence may be tried by  the   Special   Judge   while   the   remaining  conspirators   who   are   also   charged   of   the  same offence will be tried by another court,  JUDGMENT Page 23 24 because they are not charged of any offence  specified in Section 3 of the Act. 17.   We are, therefore, of the view that in  the   facts   and   circumstances   of   this   case,  the   Special   Judge   while   trying   the   co­ accused of an offence punishable under the  provisions   of   the   Act   as   also   an   offence  punishable   under   Section   120­B   read   with  Section 420 IPC has the jurisdiction to try  the   appellant   also   for   the   offence  punishable   under   Section   120­B   read   with  Section   420   IPC   applying   the   principles  incorporated in Section 223 of the Code. We,  therefore,   affirm   the   finding   of   the   High  Court and dismiss this appeal.” 25. Admittedly,   2G   Scam   case   is   triable   by   the  Special Judge against the persons accused of offences  punishable under the PC Act in view of sub­Section  (1) of Section 4.   The Special Judge alone can take  the   cognizance   of   the   offence   specified   in   sub­ Section (1) of Section 3 and conspiracy in relation  to them.     While trying any case, the Special Judge  JUDGMENT may   also   try   an   offence   other   than   the   offence  specified in sub­Section (1) of Section 3, in view of  sub­Section (3) of Section 4.     A magistrate cannot  take   cognizance   of   offence   as   specified   in   Section  3(1)   of   the   PC   Act.     In   this   background,   as   the  petitioners have been shown as co­accused in second­ supplementary chargesheet filed in 2G Scam case,  it  is open to the Special Judge to take cognizance of  the offence under Section 120­B and Section 420 IPC.  Page 24 25 26. On the question of validity of the Notification  th dated 28  March, 2011 issued by the NCT of Delhi and  th Administrative Order dated 15  March, 2011 passed by  the Delhi High Court, we hold as follows: (i) Under sub­Section (1) of Section 3 of the PC  Act 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 any offence  punishable   under   the   PC   Act.     In   the   present  case, as admittedly, co­accused have been charged  under   the   provisions   of   the   PC   Act,   and   such  offence punishable under the PC Act, the NCT of  Delhi is well within its jurisdiction to issue  Notification(s)   appointing   Special   Judge(s)   to  JUDGMENT try the 2G Scam case(s).  (ii) Article 233 and 234 of the Constitution are  attracted in cases where appointments of persons  to   be   Special   Judges   or   their   postings   to   a  particular   Special   Court   are   involved.     The  control of High Court is comprehensive, exclusive  and   effective   and   it   is   to   subserve   a   basic  feature of the Constitution i.e., independence of  Page 25 26 judiciary.     [See   High   Court   of   Judicature   for  Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal (1998) 3 SCC  72  and  Registrar (Admn.) High Court of Orissa v.  Sisir  Kanta  Satapathy  (1999)   7  SCC  725 ].    The  power to appoint or promote or post a District  Judge of a State is vested with the Governor of  the State under Article 233 of the Constitution  which can be exercised  only in consultation with  the High Court. Therefore, it is well within the  jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   to   nominate  officer(s) of the rank of the District Judge for  appointment and posting as Special Judge(s) under  sub­Section (1) of Section 3 of the PC Act.   (iii) In   the   present   case,   the   petitioners  have not challenged the nomination made by the  JUDGMENT High Court of Delhi to the NCT of Delhi. They  th have challenged the letter dated 15  March, 2011  written by the Registrar General, High Court of  Delhi,   New   Delhi   to   the   District   Judge­I­cum­ Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the  District Judge­IV­cum­Addl. Sessions Judge, I/C,  New   Delhi   District,   Patiala   House   Courts,   New  Delhi   whereby   the   High   Court   intimated   the  officers about nomination of  Mr. O.P. Saini, an  Page 26 27 officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service for his  appointment as Special Judge for 2G Scam Cases. 27. In   the   present   case   there   is   nothing   on   the  record to suggest that the petitioners will not get  fair trial and may face miscarriage of justice.   In  absence of any such threat & miscarriage of justice,  no   interference   is   called   for   against   the   impugned  order   taking   cognizance   of   the   offence   against   the  petitioners.  th On 11   April, 2001, when the 2G Scam Case was  taken   up   by   this   Court,   this   Court,   inter   alia,  observed as follows: “Acting on such basis, this Court has given  directions   for   establishing   a   separate  Special Court to try this case and pursuant  to such direction, a Special Court has been  constituted   after   following   the   due  procedure. JUDGMENT We   also   make   it   clear   that   any   objection  about   appointment   of   Special   Public  Prosecutor or his assistant advocates or any  prayer for staying or impeding the progress  of  the  Trial  can  be  made  only  before  this  Court and no other court shall entertain the  same.   The trial must proceed on a day­to­ day basis. All these directions are given by this Court  in exercise of its power under Article 136  read   with   Article   142   of   the   Constitution  and   in   the   interest   of   holding   a   fair  prosecution of the case.” Page 27 28 28. From the aforesaid order it is clear that this  Court passed the order under Article 136 read with  Article 142 of the Constitution, in the interest of  holding a fair prosecution of the case.  29. In  Rupa Asbhok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another,  (2002)   4   SCC   388,   this   Court   held   that   a   final  judgment   or   order   passed   by   this   Court   cannot   be  assailed in an application under Article 32 of the  Constitution by an aggrieved person, whether he was a  party to the case or not. For the said reason also,  it is not open to the petitioner to indirectly assail  the order passed by this Court in 2G Scam case.  30. We find no merit in these writ petitions, they  are   accordingly   dismissed.     The   Special   Court   is  expected   to   proceed   with   the   trial   on   day­to­day  basis to ensure early disposal of the trial.   There  JUDGMENT shall be no order as to costs. ….......…………………………………………….J.        (G.S. SINGHVI) …………………………………………….......….J.  (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, JULY  1 , 2013. Page 28