Jagdish Kumar Mittal v. CBI and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Nov 2025CR.R/299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Territorial jurisdiction of Special Judge (CBI) Shimla; discharge application under Sections 227/239 CrPC; criminal revision under Sections 438/442 BNSS 2023; CBI trap case RC0962023A0001; Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 7, 7-A, 19; Section 120-B IPC; CBI versus Braj Bhushan Prasad (2001) 9 SCC 432; offence committed at Chandigarh; charge sheet returned to CBI; Jagdish Kumar Mittal versus Central Bureau of Investigation; Natha Singh Sidhu versus CBI, Criminal Revision No.320 of 2025; order dated 11.04.2025 set aside; decision dated 04.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; order dated 11.04.2025 of the learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla set aside; charge sheet ordered to be returned to the CBI with liberty to file the same before the competent Court, if so advised; pending application(s) disposed of.

Jagdish Kumar Mittal Vs CBI and Another — Corruption | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶162

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court of the learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla had territorial jurisdiction to try the case, the alleged demand having been made at Chandigarh, the trap laid at Chandigarh and the bribe money allegedly paid and recovered at Chandigarh; this question was taken up first as its answer would render the other contentions unnecessary. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

Applying the decision in CBI versus Braj Bhushan Prasad (2001) 9 SCC 432, the place where the alleged offence has been committed is what confers territorial jurisdiction; accordingly the Court at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction over the matter and the learned trial Court at Shimla has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

¶157

Ratio / Principle

On the CBI's stand in the report under Section 173 Cr.PC, the alleged demand was made at Chandigarh, the trap was laid at Chandigarh and the money was allegedly paid and recovered at Chandigarh; consequently only the Court at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction.

¶136

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Virender Singh, Judge), setting aside the order dated 11.04.2025 of the learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla dismissing petitioner Jagdish Kumar Mittal's application under Sections 227 and 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge in C.B.I. Corruption Case No.11-S/7 of 2023 (RC0962023A0001; offences under Sections 7, 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC). Held, following CBI versus Braj Bhushan Prasad (2001) 9 SCC 432, that the place where the alleged offence was committed determines territorial jurisdiction; the demand was made at Chandigarh, the trap was laid at Chandigarh and the money was allegedly paid and recovered at Chandigarh, hence the Court at Chandigarh alone has territorial jurisdiction and the Shimla trial Court none. Noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had already allowed the identical petition of proforma respondent No.2 N.S. Sidhu on 15.07.2025 in Criminal Revision No.320 of 2025 (Natha Singh Sidhu v. CBI). Charge sheet directed to be returned to the CBI with liberty to file it before the competent Court; remaining contentions (want of prosecution sanction, absence of specific allegations, complainant's grudge) were left unanswered as unnecessary.

¶1

¶2

2025:HHC:37079

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶4

Cr. Revision No.299 of 2025 Reserved on:- 07.08.2025 Date of Decision: 04.11.2025 Jagdish Kumar Mittal …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

CBI & Anr.	…..Respondents
Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

¶8

For the Petitioner	:	Mr. R.L. Soo with Mr. Arju	d, Senior Advocate, n Lall, Advocate.
For the Respondents	:	Mr. Janesh for responden	Mahajan, Advocate, t No.1.
		None for resp	ondent No.2.

¶9

Virender Singh, Judge

¶10

Petitioner-Jagdish Kumar Mittal has filed the present Criminal Revision, under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, (CBI), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Cr.MP No.103-S/4 of 2024, in C.B.I. Corruption Case No.11-S/7 of 2023, titled as Jagdish Kumar Mittal versus Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶11

¶12

2025:HHC:37079

¶13

2 By way of order dated 11.04.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed under Sections 227 and 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C’), moved by petitioner Jagdish Kumar Mittal, seeking his discharge in the above titled case.

¶14

For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis, are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they are referred to, by the learned trial Court.

¶15

Brief facts, leading to filing the present application, as borne out from the record of the case, may be summed up, as under:

¶16

4.1. As per the final report submitted by the CBI under Section 173(2), before the learned trial Court, the case has been registered, on the following grounds:-

¶17

“(16) Brief Facts of the case:-

¶18

The instant case RC0962023A0001 was registered in CBI, ACB, Shimla on 3rd January, 2023 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against Sh. N. S. Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh, on the basis of a written complaint dated 3 January, 2023 lodged by the Complainant, Mr. Ketan Kumar T. Prasanna and the verification report dated 3rd January, 2023 submitted by Sh. Balbir Singh, Dy. SP, CBI, ACB, Shimla Branch.

¶19

It has been alleged that Sh. Ketan Kumar T Parsanna and his brother Sh. Mahesh Kumar T Prasanna were running an industry in the name and style of M/s Savvy Go Electric Vehicles

¶20

¶21

2025:HHC:37079

¶22

Industries at Plot No.8, Industrial Area, Sector-1. Parwanoo, Distt. Solan (HP) from 2005-06 to 2010. The said industry was insured for Rs.1.5 crores from New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh. The said industry caught fire on 19.05.2010 and the matter was reported to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and an insurance claim was also filed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thereafter, the Company had deputed its surveyor Sh. NS Sidhu who had submitted his survey report and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had rejected the said claim.

¶23

Consequently, the complainant had approached National Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi and subsequently NCDRC, New Delhi passed an order dated 07.11.2022 directing the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. therein that Rs. 44,17,212/claim be paid with interest of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization to M/s Savvy Go Electric Vehicles Industries and the order be complied in eight weeks, failing which interest be paid @ 12% per annum. Thereafter, the complainant Sh. Ketan T Prasanna contacted Shri NS Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor at his office situated at H.No.171, Sector-36A, Chandigarh to know the process for getting the said claim. Shri NS Sidhu, Surveyor told the complainant that he will inform him after 2/3 days and he further told that Sh. J.K. Mittal, GM, New India Assurance Co., Chandigarh is well known to him and the claim will be released soon and no further appeal will be filed in the higher court. On 28.12.2022 at about 12.30 PM, the complainant received a call from Shri N.S. Sidhu. Insurance Surveyor from his mobile to the mobile of the complainant and NS Sidhu had demanded bribe/undue advantage amount of Rs.12 lakhs for getting the said claim amount released early by Sh. J.K. Mittal, GM, New India Assurance Co., Chandigarh and to prevent any appeal in higher court. He also informed that he had already paid an amount of Rs.1 lakh to Shri J.K. Mittal. GM, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh on behalf of the complainant as a token. Aggrieved with the demand of bribe/undue advantage of Rs. 12 lakhs by Shri N.S. Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor, the complainant made the written complaint to SP, CBI, ACB, Shimla for taking

¶24

¶25

2025:HHC:37079

¶26

legal action against Sh. NS Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor and Sh. JK Mittal, GM, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh. Accordingly after getting the allegations verified as mentioned in the verification report dated 03.01.2023 of Sh. Balbir Singh Dy. SP. CBI, ACB, Shimla, the instant case was registered u/s 7A of PC Act, 1988(As amended in 2018) against NS Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor.

¶27

(17) Result of Investigation:-

¶28

17.1 Investigation has revealed that NS Sidhu along with JK Mittal, RM, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh were actively involved and conspired for demanding of bribe of Rs. 12 Lakhs and accepting part bribe amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant Shri Ketan Kumar T Prasanna, thus. Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 of PC Act 1988 (as amended in 2018) were also added as the role of public servant Sh. J K Mittal has also cropped up in the commission of offence the details/findings of investigation are being mentioned in the subsequent paras.

¶29

17.2 Investigation has revealed that the complainant Sh. Ketan Kumar T. Prasanna has filed a complaint dated 03.01.2023 in the O/o SP, CBI, ACB, Shimla in which complainant referred the date of 28-12-2022, when he received a phone call from NS Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor, in pursuance to his earlier visit made to the accused NS Sidhu for enquiry about the releasing of claim, aften the passing of the said order by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in favor of firm of complainant and his brother, namely, Savvy Go Electric Vehicle Industries, Pawanoo. During investigation, it is revealed that on 27.12.2022, the complainant has also recorded the conversation in his mobile which he had with accused NS Sidhu. During the said conversation the instant demand of bribe was generated from the side of accused NS Sidhu.

¶30

17.3. Investigation has further revealed that as per the transcript of the said conversation, accused NS Sidhu has firstly discussed the claim of complainant and told that his claim file is pending for legal opinion and told the complainant that if complainant did not call timely to accused NS Sidhu, the advocate would

¶31

¶32

2025:HHC:37079

¶33

have submitted his report and he/ advocate has been asked for holding the file uptil tomorrow as he/ advocate has already made his report and recommending for challenging the order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶34

17.4 Investigation has revealed that accused NS Sidhu had further told the complainant that he has managed to stop the file through the officer of New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Chandigarh, for which complainant had asked NS Sidhu that he had to handle all these affairs of advocate and officer of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., at his own level and finally NS Sidhu had agreed for 12% of the total claim as bribe amount to be given to the concerned officer.

¶35

17.5 Investigation, has revealed that in continuation to first conversation dated 27-122022, the second conversation held between complainant and accused NS Sidhu on same day reveals that accused NS Sidhu told complainant that he had paid one lac to the concerned officer as token money for doing the work in right direction and payment will be made till January 2023 and told that the file of the complainant has been sent for opinion of the advocate to Delhi Office and assured the complainant that firstly the thing has to be managed at Head Office level and the concerned officer is on its way for getting the favorable opinion.

¶36

17.6 Investigation has revealed that as the complainant did not want to pay any bribe amount, therefore, he made a complaint on 0301-2023 alleging that accused namely NS Sidhu and JK Mittal are demanding the 12% bribe of the total amount of compensation, for releasing the same early and by not filing any appeal before the Higher Court.

¶37

17.7 Investigation has revealed that during the verification of the allegation made in complaint dated 03-01-2023, the conversation held between the complainant and accused NS Sidhu was recorded, the relevant extracts of which are as follows:-

¶38

Transcription of Recoding dated 03-01-2023 (12:01 PM, 1 मि�नट 59 सैकेंड )

¶39

¶40

2025:HHC:37079

¶41

एन . एस . मिसद्ध - �ैंअबजारहाहूँअबआमि�स�ें .. जारहा था .. ऊपरअभी . केतन - आमि�स�ेंजारहेएतो ... एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हम्म्� .… एन . एस . मिसद्ध - �ैंआफ्टरनून�ेंजाऊँगादफ्तर�ेंनतोपता करताहूँआगेका . ठीकहै। केतन - हाँतो�ुझेआपबतादो .. तोउसीमिहसाबसे�ेरेको वहाँआनाहैन।औरएक - एकमिदनकरकेखींचाजारहाहै इसकरकेइतमि.एसाहब। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - �ैंआपकोबताऊँगाजबआनाहैन .. केतन - हम्� .. एन . एस . मिसद्ध - आपमिचन्ता�तकरोन।ह�.गेहुएहैंका� पेजब।

¶42

केतन - ओके�ामि.कओके .. थैंक्यूथैंक्यू�ामि.क। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हाँहाँहाँ .. ठीकठीकठीक . Transcription of Recoding dated 03-01-2023 (14:17 PM, 4 मि�नट : सैकड़ ) एन . एस . मिसद्ध - ठीकहै केतन - अभीकहाँहैं .. न्यूईमिडयाईन्शोरैंशकेआमि�स�ेंहो। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - अम्म्म्� ...

¶43

केतन - न्यूईमिडयाईन्शोरैंसकेआमि�स�ेंहो एन . एस . मिसद्ध - नहींजीअभीजारहाहूँ , �ोनआयाथा उनका .. ओभीपूछरहेथे। केतन - हम्म्� ...

¶44

एन . एस . मिसद्ध - तोआपकबआरहेहो .. मि�रआजाईए।मि�र करमि.मिजएतैयारीएकदो मिदन�ें

¶45

केतन - सरआपहुक्�करो .. जबआपबो.ो�ैंतोफ्.ाईट पकडनी .. आपहीकेपासआनाहै। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - अच्छा ..

¶46

केतन - आपबो.ोकबआऊँ। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - आजाओ . आजोकोईनहीं .. क. परसोंआ जाओ�ैंअभीआपकोकैं��8 करदेताहूँ।�ैंजानाआफ्टरनून�ेंवहाँ। केतन - हाँ एन . एस . मिसद्ध - ठीकहै , आफ्टरनून�ें केतन - क. सुबहअगरबो.ोक. सुबहहीआजाताहूँ। सुबहकीफ्.ाईटहैयहाँसेबहुततेडीचंडीगढ़। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हाँ�ैंबताता , अभीबताताहूँआपको 4 बजे तक।

¶47

केतन - हम्म्म्� . .ेमिकन�ेरेतोनगुडन्यूजदेनाहै .. आऊँगा तभी ... आऊँगातभी

¶48

¶49

2025:HHC:37079

¶50

जबआपमि�ठाईमिख.ाओगे .. गुडन्यूजदोगे एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हाँहाँमिबल्कु. मिबल्कु. । केतन - क्योमिकंवोभीन्यूईमिडयाईन्शोरैन्श�ेंथेनइतमि.ए उसताना�क्याजेके मि�त्त. हैंन।

¶51

एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हाँ केतन - जेकेमि�त्त. एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हम्� .. केतन - आपहीजोकरोगेवहीह�को�ंजूरहैऔरउसीमिहसाब सेह�नेजानाहै। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हाँहाँ .. ठीकहै�ैंबताताहूँआपकोआजही कैनेंवओकेओके एन . एस . मिसद्ध - - ठीकठीकठीक। Transcription of Recoding dated 03-01-2023 (14:59 PM, 5 मि�नट 7 सैकेंड ) केतन - ओके।�ामि.कमिकतनेबजेआजाऊँ। एन . एस . मिसद्धू - आप�जी8 जबआजाओ।जल्दीआजाओ बैटरहै।का�करवा.ोना बैंक�ेंअपना केतन - हाँहाँबैंक�ेंतो�ैंकरवा.ूँगा।औरसर ....... एन . एस . मिसद्धू - �ैंतोकरवादूँगानक. परसोंआपका।जब येकरदोगेनआपबैंककाएकाऊँटका , �ैंसाथकेसाथ करवादूँगापै�ैन्टआपकी। केतन - अब�ुझेयहबताओसाहबजी .. दोमि�नटदोमि�नट बातकरसकताहूँ�ैंअभी। एन . एस . मिसद्धू - हाँकरो। केतन - मिकतनापे�ैन्टमिद.वारहेहो . एन . एस . मिसद्धू - हाँजी रहाहैन , मिकसाहब�ुझेबताओआपतोसी . एकेतन - 9 पस<न्ट , वहींवहीतो�ैंबो. रहाहूँन , हो .. �ैंतोइतनापढा मि.खाहूँनहीं .. मिकतनीए�ांऊँटहोजाएगी। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - 93 समिम्थंगहोजाएगी , एगैक्ट�ैंबतादूँगा आपको .. ठीकहै ... केतन - हाँ .. यहजोआपनेबतायाथा 12 परसेन्टतो 44 .ाख का 12 परसेंटदेनाहैयापूरीटोट. ए�ाऊँटकाबनाहै। केतन - च.ोकोईबातनहीं .. अअ .. क. .. मिकतनाकैश.ेकर आऊँ एन . एस . मिसद्ध - .ेआओसाराही। केतन - साराही.ेआऊँ ..... सबसारारहनेदो ... फ्.ाईट�ें आना�ेरेको.ेने .. तभीहोजाएगाना .. �ैंफ्.ाईट�ें.ेभी नहींपाऊँगा। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - अॅ?म्� ... केतन - फ्.ाईट�ें.ानाभी�ेरेमि.ए�ुमि@क. होजाएगा।तो सारातोनहीं.ासकतान।अबबताओमिकतना.ाऊँ। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - तोबाकीकैसेकरोगेमि�र।

¶52

¶53

2025:HHC:37079

¶54

केतन - वोमि�रवहाँआतेहीकरवा.ूँगाजैसेहीयेआ जाएगा , तुरंतमिनक.वाकेहीआपकोवहाँसेवहाँदेदूँगा .. �ैं वहींरुकनेवा.ाहूँ। एन . एस . मिसद्धू - अच्छा केतन - यमिदआपगुडन्यूजदेरहेहोतो�ैंवहींरुकूँगान। एन . एस . मिसद्ध - हाँहाँ केतन - तो�ैंवहीवहींतुरंतआपकोदेदूँगा।

¶55

एन . एस . मिसद्धू - अच्छातो.ेआओआप .. आपमिकतना.ा सकतेहो। केतन - आपबताओ .. पाँच.ेआँऊ एन . एस . मिसद्ध - 7-8 .ेआओ। 7 तकतो.ाओक�सेक�

¶56

…

¶57

केतन - साहब .. �ैंतो.ेऑऊपरसाथ�ें.ाने�ेंमिदक्कतहो जाएगी। 5 .ेआताहूँ�ैं .. क. 11 बजेमि�. .ेताहूँ . बाकी का�ैंहैनशा�तकस�यदोगेतोशा�तकमिक्.यरकर दूँगासबकुछ। एन . एस . मिसद्धू - एकाऊँटकाभीकरोनं .. एकाक< टकाभीपता करोबैंकसेअभी . केतन - हाँवोतो�ैंबतातारहूँगा।जी . ए�मि�त्त. साहबका भीसबकुछवोहैनवोकरवादें।आपको�ैं 5 देदूँगाउसते बाद�ैंवहींआपकेपासरुकजाऊँगाजैसेहीआजाएगा�ैं आपकोमिवदड्राकरवाकेदेदूँगावहीं। एन . एस . मिसद्धू - च.ोदेख.ो .. जोकरनाहैहैभाई। के.न - नहींसाहब .. �ेरे�ामि.क .. आपहीबडेहो एन . एस . मिसद्धूदेखोआपदेखो .. केतन - 12 �ेंसे 5 होजाएगा ... बाकीमिकतनारहेगा .. 7 बचेगा 7 आप�ैंवहींवहाँएरेन्ज�ैन्टकरवादूँगायामि�र अगरकोईऐसीमिसस्ट�होतोबताओ।तोउसीमिहसाब एन . एस . मिसद्ध - ठीकहैकोईनहीं।.ेआनाजो.ाताहै। केतन - ठीकहै .. ओकेबॉय .. थैंक्यू .. थैंक्यू

¶58

In this way, accused NS Sidhu demanded bribe of Rs. 12 lacs and agreed to accept Rs.5 lacs as part bribe amount to get the work through Sh. JK Mittal. Accordingly, after registration of this case, it was decided to lay a trap in order to first catch NS Sidhu while demanding and accepting the said bribe amount.

¶59

17.8. Investigation has revealed that presence of two independent witnesses namely (i) Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Junior Engineer, Electrical Wing, CPWD. Shimla and (ii) Shri Himanshu Kumar Junior Engineer, B&R, MC, Chandigarh was secured and a trap team including S/Sh. Balbir Singh, Dy. SP as Trap Laying Officer (TLO), Rajesh Prashar, Inspector, Prashant Singh Thakur, Inspector, Rajinder Kumar, SubInspector of CBI, ACB, Shimla and other supporting staff was constituted and on

¶60

¶61

2025:HHC:37079

¶62

04.01.2023, all assembled at Inspection Bungalow, CPWD, Sector-7, Chandigarh. The SoP pertaining to pre-trap proceedings was followed. On being asked by the TLO, the complainant produced Rs. 05 Lacs to be used as trap money as demanded by the accused NS Sidhu as part payment. The details of distinctive numbers of GC notes were mentioned in pre-trap memo. A practical demonstration for understanding the principle behind the laying of trap as mentioned in pre-trap memo, was given to the independent witnesses, complainant and other trap team members. The above mentioned GC notes, produced by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and as per directions, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar kept the above mentioned GC notes amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/smeared with phenolphthalein powder, in black colour laptop bag of the complainant ensuring its emptiness. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar independent witness was instructed to accompany the complainant and to act as a shadow witness. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, shadow witness was specifically instructed to overhear the conversation between the complainant and accused person at the time of passing of bribe money and also to see the passing over of the bribe amount to the accused person. He was also instructed that soon after passing over the bribe amount by the complainant to the accused person, he will give signal by making a call on the mobile no.7986981410 of Sh. Balbir Singh, Dy. SP (TLO) confirming the transactions of bribe from his mobile phone No. 9540353550. Similar direction was also given to the complainant for making a phone call from his mobile phone No. 93186-11011 to mobile phone No.7986981410 of TLO. The complainant and shadow witness were further instructed to see as to where accused person keeps the amount of bribe after accepting the same.

¶63

17.9. Investigation has revealed that before leaving Inspection Bungalow, CPWD, Sector-7, Chandigarh, one Sony Digital Voice Recorder with one fresh Memory card of 32 GB capacity inserted into Sony DVR, was taken. Both complainant and shadow witness were explained about the operation of the DVR and thereafter, the same was hidden in the person of

¶64

¶65

2025:HHC:37079

¶66

the complainant with directions to switch on the same just before meeting the accused person to record the conversation. After completing the pretrap proceeding, the complainant made a call to accused N8 Sidhu to ascertain the place of meeting. on which the accused asked him to come to Sagar Ratna Restaurant in Sector-17, Chandigarh. The said conversation was also recorded in the DVR provided by the TLO to complainant.

¶67

17.10. Investigation has revealed that after that on 04.01.2023, CBI trap team left for the said spot at about 12.50 PM and reached near Sagar Ratna, Sector 17. Chandigarh. The complainant and Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, shadow witness entered the Sagar Ratna restaurant at about 1.06 PM and took seat in the left side corner at ground floor. Sh. Balbir Singh, Dy. SP/TLO along with other witness Sh. Himanshu Kumar took seat at the ground floor in the middle of the Sagar Ratna restaurant in right side. Other trap team members scattered in front of the Sagar Ratna Restaurant. At about 1.25 PM, one gentleman wearing specs and grey colour jacket aged about 60 years, entered the Sagar Ratna Restaurant and sat on the same table in front of complainant. They ordered some snacks. At about 1.43 PM, the complainant sent a text message to TLO that "Bhai bahar" "Gadi me pakad na". After receiving the message, the TLO came out from the Sagar Ratna Restaurant along with witness Sh. Himanshu Kumar and informed the team members that the complainant, accused and shadow witness are coming out and the transaction will take place in vehicle. NS Sidhu, complainant and shadow witness came out of the sagar ratna restaurant and proceeded towards left side of the restaurant. After walking 200 yards, the accused and the complainant entered into Blue Colour Baleno Car having registration No. CH-01 CH 5220 of accused NS Sidhu at about 1.46 PM whereas the shadow witness was standing near the said car. At about 1.51 PM. TLO received the pre decided signal from the complainant in the shape of phone call on his mobile informing that the transaction has taken place. Sh. Balbir Singh, Dy. SP/TLO immediately signaled the other team members and rushed towards above mentioned

¶68

¶69

2025:HHC:37079

¶70

Baleno Car in which the complainant and NS Sidhu were found sited on the front seats of the said car. NS Sidhu was caught by Sh. Prashant Singh Thakur, Inspector and Sh. Rajesh Prashar, Inspector from right and left wrists respectively. Sh. Balbir Singh, Dy. SP/TLO also reached the spot and also introduced himself as Dy. SP, CBI, ACB, Shimla to the accused. TLO challenged accused N.S. Sidhu, if he had demanded a bribe of Rs.12 lakhs and accepted a bribe amount of Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant as first installment. At this, accused became nervous and admitted his guilt. In the meantime, Sh. Prashant Singh Thakur, Inspector took out the Sony DVR from the possession of the complainant and switched it off. NS Sidhu disclosed his full name as Natha Singh Sidhu. The complainant was asked to narrate the transaction of bribe between him and the accused NS Sidhu. The complainant explained that NS Sidhu checked the bribe amount with his both hands and on the instructions of NS Sidhu, the complainant kept the bribe amount in the Glove-box of the car.

¶71

17.11. Investigation has revealed that as a part of post trap procedure, colourless solutions of sodium carbonate and water were prepared separately and left hand wash and right hand wash of the accused NS Sidhu were taken. On doing so, the said colourle solutions turned pink. The said pink coloured solutions were transferred in separate clean glass bottles which were marked as "LHW' and 'RHW' and signed by both witnesses.

¶72

17.12. Investigation has revealed on the directions of Sh. Balbir Singh, Dy SP/TLO. Sh. Himanshu Kumar, witness recovered the bribe amount from glove-box of the car. Both the witnesses were given pre-trap memo dated 04.01.2023. Sh. Himanshu Kumar counted the same with the help of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and informed that the recovered GC notes totaling of Rs. 05 Lacs and the numbers of GC notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in pre-trap memo. The said GC notes were put into a white colour envelope and marked as "TM" in the presence of the independent witnesses and the said envelope was sealed with CBI brass seal and both witnesses signed the same.

¶73

¶74

2025:HHC:37079

¶75

17.13 Investigation has revealed thereafter, the wash of glove-box of the Baleno Car of accused NS Sidhu was also taken into colourless solution of sodium carbonate & water which has also turned into pink. The said pink coloured solution was transferred in a clean glass bottle, and a paper slip was pasted on it which was marked as 'CGBW'. Both the independent witnesses appended signatures on the white paper slip pasted on the said bottle.

¶76

17.14 Investigation has revealed after that NS Sidhu was asked to call Sh. JK Mittal, informing that the bribe amount has been received by him on his behalf. He made a call to JK Mittal but he did not respond the call. But, at about 1.37 PM, there was a missed call from the number of JK Mittal on the mobile of NS Şidhu. NS Sidhu was asked to send a message to JK Mittal, GM regarding accepting bribe on his behalf. On this, NS Sidhu sent a WhatsApp message, ie.. "savvy Go 5 L papers received from Ketan". NS Sidhu informed that they used to call paper to the bribe amount. As accused was caught in the parking of Sector 17, Chandigarh and there was huge crowd at the spot. Keeping in view the safety of hand washes and trap money, TLO decided to shift the accused to a safer place. Meanwhile at about 2.14 PM, the complainant received a cali from one Sh. Sandeep Gupta of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. asking him to come to New India Assurance Office along with NS Sidhu. He had also informed that they had ordered lunch for all. When the accused was being taken to the office of Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sector 17A, Chandigarh, NS Sidhu received a call from JK Mittal at about 2.32 PM. Due to the paucity of time, the call was not recorded in the DVR but the same was recorded in the mobile of complainant. During the said conversation, NS Sidhu informed Sh.JK Mittal that "Wo Kaam Ho gaya tha Savvy Go wala" on which Sr. JK Mittal said "Chalo Good Good Good".

¶77

17.15 Investigation has revealed that the CBI team reached at the office of New India Assurance Co. at about 2.41 PM. Sh. JK Mital (Jagdish Kumar Mittal), Regional Manager, New India Assurance was found sitting in his office

¶78

¶79

2025:HHC:37079

¶80

chamber. He was confronted with NS Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor. NS Sidhu, in the presence of both the independent witnesses and trap team members told that he had accepted the bribe from the complainant on behalf of JK Mittal, RM. Initially, JK Mittal refused and told that he did not ask NS Sidhu for taking bribe on his behalf. But, when he was confronted with the facts and his call made to NS Sidhu at 2.32 PM, he accepted that NS Sidhu was taking bribe on his behalf.

¶81

17.16. Investigation has revealed that, as per the conversation recorded between the complainant and the accused NS Sidhu, accused Sidhu had instructed the complainant to deliver the bribe amount outside the restaurant and thereafter proceeded towards the left side of the restaurant in the parking area, where the complainant, as per the demand of the accused, had delivered the bribe amount of Rs. 05 lacs to the accused NS Sidhu who checked the same with both hands and thereafter, accused asked the complainant to keep the same in glove box and as per the direction of the accused, the complainant kept the said bribe amount in the glove box of the Baleno Car of the accused having registration No. CH 01 CH 5220.

¶82

The brief of relevant portion of the conversation held between the complainant and accused NS Sidhu on 04.01.2023 in the case is as under:-

¶83

केतन - anytime most welcome...anytime most welcome. एनएसमिसद्ध - गाडीहैइनकेपास , भाईसाहबके पास .

¶84

केतन - हाँ , इसीकीगाडी�ें.ेकेआया�ैं , �ैंक्याबो. रहा हूँ , केसमिक्.यरकरनेकोबो. रहाहूँ

¶85

केतन - �ैंइसमि.एबो. रहाहूँमिक�ैंकपड़े�ेंछुपाछुपाकर .ायाथा।

¶86

( बैगकेमिजपखु.नेकीआवाज )

¶87

केतन - .ाख ... दो.ाख .. येहैदो .. चार ... औरपूरे .......... प्.ीजएकबारसाहबसेबातकर.ो . भैयानेबो.ाथाबात कर.ोमिकआपकाहोगयाहै , भैयाने�ुझेबो.ाथामिकबात करवाकेहीपै�ैन्टदेना .. �ैनेबो.ानहीं ....

¶88

आपतसल्.ीकरवादोप्.ीज।।। पे�ैन्ट .. ... भैयानेबो.ाथा�ैनेबो.ानहीं , मिसधुसाहबके इतने�ोनआगएहैं। मिसंधूसाहबयहबो. दोमिकपाटी8 आगईहै , भैयाकेमिकतने �ोनआगएहैं 10 बजेके।

¶89

¶90

2025:HHC:37079

¶91

एन . एस . मिसद्धदोबजमि.ए , .ँचकररहेहोगें . केतन - साहबइतनाहीबो. दोबसमिकहोगया।पाटी8 आ गईहै।

¶92

वोबो.तेहैजी.ेमिजन्दगीबस।

¶93

आपहीबातकर.ो , �ैंचुपरहूँगा।�ेरेभाईसाहबका�ोन आरहाहै , �ैनेमिरपोट8 देनीआपकर.ो।आपकर.ो .. कोई मिदक्कतनहीं ... आपकर.ोपह.े।

¶94

This conversation held between both accused are also corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence like CCTV footage of the Office Chamber of the JK Mittal, where it could be found that when the accused NS Sidhu was asking for the bribe amount from the complainant, parallelly the accused NS Sidhu was making visit to accused JK Mittal which is further corroborated by the call details held between the complainant and accused NS Sidhu, and NS Sidhu, & JK Mittal.

¶95

In this way, both the above mentioned accused persons conspired with each other, which is amply clear from the CCTV footage of Camera No. 10 of the official chamber of accused JK Mittal as well as the CDRs of the mobile of accused persons as well as complainant. NS Sidhu was constantly in touch with the complainant on 27/28.12.2022 to 03/04.01.2023, On 28.12.2022 at about 12.22 PM. NS Sidhu made a call to the complainant and told him that he has just discussed with JK Mittal in his office and has just come out from the office The scrutiny of CCTV footage has revealed that he visited New India Assurance Co. office on 28.12.2022 and entered in the office of JK Mittal at about 12.01 PM and came out at 12.22 PM in between NS Sidhu made a whatsApp miscall from his phone No. 9779904982 to 9318611011 of complainant at 12.21 PM. After that complainant Sh. Ketan Kumar T Prasanna make a whatsApp call to NS Sidhu on 12.22 PM and talked for 06 Seconds and after that Sh. Ketan" Kumar T Prasanna make a normal call to NS Sidhu at 12.22 PM and talked for 431 seconds. In the said call, NS Sidhu said to Sh. Ketan Kumar T Prasanna that he had just met with Sh. JK Mittal and disused his case. And again on 03.01.2023, Sh. NS Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor came in the office chamber of Sh. JK Mittal at 05.15 PM and discussed something and came

¶96

¶97

2025:HHC:37079

¶98

out at 05.22 PM. After that at 06.29 PM, NS Sidhu made a whatsApp call from his phone No. 9779904982 to 9318611011 of complainant and talked for 4.16 minutes.

¶99

17.17 Investigation has revealed that there is no blue tick in the whatsapp message sent by N.S. Sidhu to J.K. Mittal at 2:05 pm while whatsapp call has been made by J.K. Mittal to N.S. Sidhu at 2:32pm. It is practically not possible to make whatsapp call without going through the whatsapp chat. It means J.K. Mittal has called N.S. Sidhu back after seeing the message ie. "savvy Go 5 L papers received from Ketan".

¶100

17.18. Investigation has further revealed that in the whatsapp chat record of NS Sidhu, all the previous messages/media files sent to J.K. Mittal are only showing delivered. It means that J.K. Mittal has turned off the read receipts in his whatsapp setting. To corroborate this aspect, photos of whatsapp chat of J.K. Mittal with Mrs. Kiran Jacob, DGM, New India Assurance Company Ltd. were also collected, which is showing a continuous conversation/chats with J K Mittal but there is no blue tick for read receipt. Therefore, on the basis of the above said WhatsApp chats and subsequent WhatsApp Call, it is established that JK Mittal was hand in gloves with NS Sidhu to collect the bribe amount from the complainant Sh. Ketan T Prasanna.

¶101

17.19 Investigation has revealed that both the accused persons namely NS Sidhu and JK Mittal were arrested after observing all legal and codal formalities on 04.01.2023. Further, after taking the police custody remand, voice sample of the both the accused were taken in the O/o CBI, ACB, Shimla in the presence of independent witnesses.

¶102

17.20 Investigation has revealed that the exhibits, i.e., washes and recorded material/conversations have been sent to CFSL, Chandigarh for examination and reports. The report on washes has been received positive mentioning the presence of phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate, whereas, the opinion on recorded conversations of the complainant and accused persons is still awaited.

¶103

¶104

2025:HHC:37079

¶105

17.21 Keeping in view the above made discussion, it has come out that accused NS Sidhu (A-1) had demanded a bribe amount/undue advantage of Rs. 12 Lacs and accepted part payment of the said bribe/undue advantage of Rs.5 lacs from the complainant on behalf of accused JK Mittal (A-2), RM. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by making the complainant to believe that JK Mittal (A-2) was the final authority to release the claim amount and he is also the authority to decide whether the appeal in higher form is to be filed or not.

¶106

17.21. The abovementioned facts and circumstances reveal the commission of offences punishable U/s 120-B of IPC and Sections 7 & 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and substantive offences thereof against both the accused persons namely NS Sidhu (A-1) and JK Mittal (A-2).

¶107

17.22 Sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of P. C. Act, 1988 in respect of Sh. J K Mittal (A-2), Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Chandigarh is still awaited from the concerned Competent Authority and the same will be filed before this Hon'ble court as and when received.”

¶108

4.2. After filing the charge sheet, before the learned trial Court, accused Jagdish Kumar Mittal and one Nath Singh Sidhu @ N.S. Sidhu had filed application under Sections 227 & 239 of Cr.P.C. As per application, accused Jagdish Kumar Mittal has pleaded that he has no concern, whatsoever, with the crime in question. He has no communication with the complainant and even, complainant does not know the designation of the accused (petitioner) in the company.

¶109

4.3. In addition to this, according to accused Jagdish Kumar Mittal, the learned trial Court lacks territorial

¶110

¶111

2025:HHC:37079

¶112

jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged crime, as every act, allegedly being part of the crime, had taken place or occurred at Chandigarh, as such, CBI Court, Chandigarh, may have jurisdiction, but, CBI, ACB, Shimla, lacks jurisdiction to register the FIR and to investigate the matter. The office of the Insurance Company is located at Chandigarh and petitioner served at Chandigarh. The alleged recovery of bribe money from the car of N.S. Sidhu (co-accused), as well as, his arrest was at Chandigarh, as such, only, the Court at Chandigarh would have the jurisdiction and the charge sheet ought to have been presented, before the CBI Court at Chandigarh.

¶113

4.4. Reiterating the factual position, it is the further case of accused-Jagdish Kumar Mittal that there is no allegation of any demand made to the complainant by the petitioner. No prosecution sanction has been obtained against the petitioner, as such, without prosecution sanction, no cognizance can be taken. No specific allegations have been levelled against accused-Jagdish Kumar Mittal, as such, he has no role to play with the crime in question.

¶114

4.5. On the basis of the above facts, the accused has prayed before the learned trial Court that he may kindly be

¶115

¶116

2025:HHC:37079

¶117

discharged from the offences, in which, he has been named, as accused.

¶118

4.6. The application has been contested by the CBI, on the ground that after due verification, the present case has been registered and trap was laid by the CBI, on 04.01.2023. Consequently, accused N.S. Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor has been arrested and was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe money of Rs.5,00,000/-, from the complainant, in the presence of independent witness. Accused Jagdish Kumar Mittal was informed by accused N.S. Sidhu, in connection with receipt of the bribe money from Savvy Go Electrical Vehicle Industry, Plot No.8, Industrial Area of Parwanoo. Jagdish Kumar Mittal has also admitted this fact, when, he was confronted with the above factual position.

¶119

Reiterating the factual position, as mentioned, in the charge sheet, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

¶120

The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel appearing for the accused, as well as, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, has dismissed the application vide order dated 11.04.2025.

¶121

¶122

2025:HHC:37079

¶123

Against the said dismissal of the application, accused-petitioner has approached to this Court, mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court has not considered the fact that the learned trial Court is not having the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance.

¶124

The alleged offence is stated to have been taken place at Chandigarh. The complainant allegedly contacted the Surveyor at his residence at Chandigarh, where, alleged demand was made by the Surveyor to him. Trap was laid at Chandigarh, as such, according to the petitioner, merely lodging a false complaint at convenient CBI office, could not confer any jurisdiction of the learned trial Court.

¶125

In addition to this, impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the employer of the petitioner did not initiate any disciplinary proceeding against him. The name of the petitioner is stated to have been added later on, in order to attract the provisions of Section 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶126

The order, as passed by the learned trial Court, has further been assailed on the ground that the complainant was nursing grudge against N.S. Sidhu , as he was the Surveyor, who had reached the conclusion that the claim of the insured

¶127

¶128

2025:HHC:37079

¶129

against fire to his Industrial Unit was false and self caused. Thereafter, Surveyor N.S. Sidhu had submitted his report, which was accepted by the Insurance Company, by repudiating the claim on 06.06.2011.

¶130

The said order has been challenged by the complainant, before the National Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission and the case of the complainant was allowed on 07.11.2022, in his favour.

¶131

Since the question of territorial jurisdiction has been raised in this case, by the petitioner, the said question is required to be decided first, as, in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Court at Shimla is having no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, then, there will be no legal requirement to answer the other contentions, as raised in the petition.

¶132

The petitioner is stated to be resident of House No.704, Sector-26, Panchkula and as per the charge sheet, petitioner Jagdish Kumar Mittal was posted as General Manager, New India Insurance Company Chandigarh. Merely the complainant is resident of Shimla does not clothe the trial Court with the territorial jurisdiction.

¶133

¶134

2025:HHC:37079

¶135

If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as CBI versus Braj Bhushan Prasad, reported in

¶136

(2001) 9 SCC 432, then, it can be said that the place, where, the alleged offence has been committed will have the territorial jurisdiction. Relevant paragraphs-31 to 42 are reproduced, as

¶137

under:-

¶138

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:

¶139

“4. (2) Every offence specified in subsection (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.”

¶140

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, subsection (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

¶141

¶142

2025:HHC:37079

¶143

area within which the offence was committed.

¶144

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 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.

¶145

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.

¶146

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

¶147

¶148

2025:HHC:37079

¶149

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.

¶150

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.

¶151

38. In this context, it is useful to refer to Section 181 of the Code, which falls within Chapter XIII, comprising 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.

¶152

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

¶153

¶154

2025:HHC:37079

¶155

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.

¶156

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 having jurisdiction is the place where the offence was committed.”

¶157

In view of the stand, so taken by the CBI, in the report under Section 173 of Cr.PC, alleged demand was made at Chandigarh, trap was laid at Chandigarh and money was allegedly paid and recovered at Chandigarh. As such, the Court at Chandigarh is having the territorial jurisdiction over the matter and the learned trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present case.

¶158

Even otherwise, the petition filed by proforma respondent No.2-Natha Singh Sidhu @ N.S. Sidhu, on the similar grounds has already been allowed, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.07.2025 passed in

¶159

¶160

2025:HHC:37079

¶161

Criminal Revision No.320 of 2025, titled as Natha Singh Sidhu versus CBI.

¶162

Consequently, the present criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, (CBI), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Cr.MP No.103-S/4 of 2024, in C.B.I. Corruption Case No.11S/7 of 2023, titled as Jagdi2025:HHC:37079sh Kumar Mittal versus Central Bureau of Investigation, is set aside.

¶163

The charge sheet is ordered to be returned to the CBI. The CBI is at liberty to file the same in the competent Court to try and decide the matter, in accordance with law, if so, advised.

¶164

The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶165

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶166

November 04, 2025 (subhash)

Jagdish Kumar Mittal v. CBI and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kumar Mittal v. CBI and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaman Lal Vs Babu Ram

Tara Devi Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Bhisham Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Monika Vs Ajay Kumar

Harpal Singh Vs Ranveer Singh

Rakesh Kumar @ Shanu Vs State of Hp