There is jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Delhi to investigation in this

matter
The act of corruption:
There were severe allegations of irregularities in the accounts of the three Private Power
Distribution Companies on the Congress Party.
1
The three Discoms formed under the Public
Private Partnership model were allocated coal mines by Central Government for captive
mining and consumption at thermal plants for generation of thermal electricity to meet the
power demands of the people of Delhi.
2

Even though the Central Government allotted the coal mines by employing the process of
Competitive Bidding but the pre-requisites for participating in the bidding process were
changed every time to make things easier and favourable for select few industrial groups.
3

This can clearly be observed from the instance of the bidding process conducted in the year
2009 where the government introduced a new criterion according to which the entities using
coal for electricity generation were given preference and accordingly, Alliance Infra, Prime
Powers and Syrma Powers were allocated majority coal mines.
4

As per the new notification issued by the government inviting bids for allocation of coal
mines a new pre-requisite was brought in according to which the entities willing to provide
thermal electricity at concessional rates shall be given preference in allocation of coal
mines. This pre-requisite of the government also favoured only select few industrial groups.
5

As in the present case, we can see that the three industries in question are involved in
production and distribution of thermal electricity by virtue of the Public Private Partnership
agreement they entered into with the government to meet the power demands of the people of
Delhi
6
and the fact that the new pre-requisite of the government to allocate coal mines seeks
this as a criteria for preference in allocation of coal mines clearly shows favouritism on the
part of the Central Government.

1
Moot Proposition P 2
2
Moot Proposition P 2
3
Moot Proposition P 8
4
Moot Proposition P 8
5
Moot Proposition P 9
6
Moot Proposition P 2
An article criticising the coal allocation policy of the Central Government was published in a
newspaper of national repute. The article mentioned that the coal allocation process of
Government of India was aimed at favouring select few industrial groups. The article also
named therein a former Union Minister, a present Union Minister and several Civil Servants
of the Union Government to be involved in this act of favouritism and corruption.
7

It is humbly submitted before this court that from the facts above, as pointed out, it becomes
abundantly clear that the pre-requisites are changed every time just to bestow unfair benefits
on a few corporate houses by the Central Government.
Offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, inter alia, deals with offences of corruption amongst
public servants. Corruption is an enemy of the whole of nation and tracking down corrupt
public servant and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
8
A public servant is defined in section 2 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act
9
and for our purposes, in the present case, the ministers in question do come
under the wide ambit of the definition of the term public servant by virtue of section 2 (c)
(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which defines a public servant as any person in the
service or the pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or
commission for the performance of any public duty
10

The expression person in the pay of the Government covers Ministers and Chief Ministers.
As can be observed from the much quoted decision of 1979 of the Supreme Court in the case
of M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India
11
where it was observed by the court that the Ministers
are in pay of the Government in as much as they receive their salaries, remuneration or wages
from the Government and thus they come under the ambit of the definition of public servant
under section 2 (c) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus, the union ministers in
the instant case are public servants under the law.
There are various judgments delivered by the Supreme Court which show that under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an ex-public servant can also be

7
Moot Proposition P 10
8
Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi & Anr WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38 OF 1997
9
Section 2 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
10
Section 2 (c) (i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
11
AIR 1979 SC 878
prosecuted for offences committed while in service. In the case of State of West Bengal
v. Manmal Bhutoria
12
the Supreme Court observed that the crucial date for the purposes of
attracting the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act is the date on which the offence
is committed and on that particular date, the accused must be a public servant. The court
went on to add that the factors such as retirement, resignation, dismissal or removal of a
public servant would not wipe out the offence which the public servant committed while in
service and thus in the present case even the Ex-union ministers can be held liable for their
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with the cases involving
criminal misconduct by public servants.
13
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act deals with the cases where public servants while holding their office abuse their position
of power by corrupt or illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves or for any
other person.
14

The facts stated above show that the ministers of the Central Government have committed
offences under section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
15

It is humbly submitted that in the present case, the ministers by favouring select few
industrial groups in allocation of coal mines are offering pecuniary advantage to these
industrial groups by corrupt or illegal means. The act of the Government changing the pre-
requisites every time depicts a clear corrupt intent on the part of the Government. As the pre-
requisites are always in favour of select few industrial groups, this orchestrated scenario by
the actions of the public servants clearly reflects of having been done without any public
interest in mind and while abusing their position as public servants. The act of favouritism
shown by the public servants in the instant case are just to make the bid condition unfairly
favourable for a few industrial groups and thus the ministers in question in the instant matter
are liable of having committed criminal misconduct under section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
Now that a cognisable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is established,
the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Delhi can be said to be having the jurisdiction to look into the

12
AIR 1977 SC 1772
13
Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
14
Section 13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
15
Section 13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
matter as most of the criminal offences have taken place in the state of Delhi. As per the
notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi
16
under section 2 (s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
17
read with the
notification of the Government of India issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1974
which declared the Anti-Corruption Bureau as a Police Station having jurisdiction all over the
National Capital Territory of Delhi.
18
By the virtue of these notifications, the Anti-Corruption
Bureau has been authorised to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Thus, it has the authority under law to receive, register and investigate complaints and
cases falling under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Territorial Jurisdiction:
The fact that the allocation of Coal Mines falls as a subject mentioned under the union list
does not affect the jurisdictional rights of Anti-Corruption Bureau as the jurisdiction cannot
be judged by subjects mentioned in the Union list (List I) or state list (List II) in the Seventh
Schedule of the Indian Constitution but has to be judged on the basis of situs of the alleged
criminal offence. In the case of V.K Puri v. Central Bureau of Investigation
19
, it was held that
the jurisdiction to try a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 depends upon the
place of commission of offence; the court in this case also observed that even if a part of
offence is committed at a particular place or a part of unfair profit is earned at a particular
place then in that case the whole of the offence can be tried at that place itself. In the instant
matter, the commission of the offence of making profits by the ministers of the Central
Government by virtue of granting unfair favours has taken place in the state of Delhi and the
issue in question also affects the public of Delhi and thus the Anti-Corruption Bureau can be
said to be valid in its exercise of territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
In Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisdiction is demarcated only on the basis of
territory and there's no statutory provision which states that any investigating agency
has the sole jurisdiction over corruption cases involving Central public servants. So,
there is no reason why Anti-Corruption Bureaus investigation in the matter of
corruption in allocation of Coal Mines should be subjected to questions.

16
F.1/21/92-Home (P) Estt.1750, 8th November, 1993, Govt. of GNCT.
17
Section 2 (s), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
18
U-11011/2/74-UTL(i) dated 20.3.1974 Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affair
19
Appeal (crl.) 635 of 2007
Filing FIR for cognizable offences mandatory:
There are a plethora of judgments where the courts in India have held that on receipt of
information relating to commission of a cognizable offence the police officer is bound to
register an FIR under section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
20
In case the
information brought before the police is of a cognizable offence then in that case, filing of an
FIR is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
21
As the
offences committed under section 13 1 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
22
are
cognizable offences
23
in case any information regarding offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is brought before the police, the police have no choice but to register an
FIR. In the present case as well, the cognizable offence under section 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed and thus, there lies no choice with the
Anti-Corruption Bureau but to register an FIR in this regard as the offence is clearly
cognisable and as per section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the police have to
register an FIR against the offenders.
24

From the above, we humbly submit that the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Delhi has the
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter relating to allocation of coal mines.

20
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P W.P.(Crl) No; 68/2008
21
Ziller Rahim V. SP, CBI/ACB 2014 CriLJ 1800
22
Section 13 d POC
23
Cbi v. Suresh Nanda 138 (2007) DLT 123
24
section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973