Delhi High Court Refuses to Quash CBI Trial Over Territorial Jurisdiction; Holds Wrong Venue Cannot Invalidate Advanced Proceedings Without Demonstrated Failure of Justice or Prejudice
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Charges in CBI Rice Export Case; Holds Territorial Jurisdiction Objection Insufficient Without Actual Failure of Justice
Facts
The petition was filed by Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. and another under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), challenging orders refusing their discharge and directing framing of charges under Sections 471 and 468 IPC.
The dispute originated from a Government policy permitting export of wheat and rice procured from the Food Corporation of India (“FCI”) through nominated agencies and PSUs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (“PSWC”) selected Vishal Exports as its associate for export of rice, and an agreement dated 12 March 2003 was executed at Chandigarh for export of 5,500 MT of rice.
The company lifted 5,390 MT of rice. Export documents relating to 3,000 MT and 1,223 MT were verified by Customs at Kandla, Gujarat. However, regarding the remaining 1,167 MT, the prosecution alleged that bank realisation certificates and other documents produced to establish export were forged and that the rice had actually been diverted and sold in the domestic market.
The CBI registered an FIR on 20 September 2006 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in 2007. Since no Prevention of Corruption Act offence was ultimately invoked, the proceedings were remitted from the Special CBI Court to the ACMM.
The ACMM eventually rejected the petitioners’ discharge application and directed framing of charges. Their revision was also dismissed. The petitioners then approached the Delhi High Court, principally arguing that Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because no part of the alleged offence had occurred in Delhi.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be set aside because the Delhi courts allegedly lacked territorial jurisdiction.
- Whether Section 508 BNSS, corresponding to Section 462 Cr.P.C., protected proceedings conducted in a wrong local area unless the accused demonstrated a failure of justice.
- Whether the petitioners had demonstrated any actual prejudice arising from the trial being conducted in Delhi.
- Whether the advanced stage of the trial, with more than half the prosecution witnesses already examined, militated against returning the charge-sheet or restarting proceedings before another court.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to interfere with the orders framing charges.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Delhi courts inherently lacked territorial jurisdiction. They maintained that this objection had not been raised belatedly but had repeatedly been taken during arguments on charge in 2022 and 2024 and specifically in their discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
They pointed out that the Revisional Court itself recorded that the contract-related transaction had taken place in Punjab, while the rice was exported through Kandla Port in Gujarat. According to them, the necessary consequence was that Delhi had no territorial nexus with the alleged offences.
They further argued that mere filing of a charge-sheet in Delhi could not confer territorial jurisdiction upon a court otherwise lacking it.
The petitioners contended that Section 508 BNSS/Section 462 Cr.P.C. was only a post-trial curative provision and could not cure a territorial jurisdiction defect where the objection had been raised before charges were framed.
They also relied upon the CBI’s statement that it had no objection to the proceedings continuing before a competent CBI Court at Chandigarh/Mohali. However, they argued that a Sessions Court in Delhi could not transfer a criminal case to a court subordinate to another High Court, as inter-State transfer jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
The CBI argued that the territorial jurisdiction objection had been raised at a highly belated stage.
It emphasised that the FIR was registered in 2006, the charge-sheet filed in 2007, summons issued in 2008, and the petitioners had participated in the proceedings for many years before pressing the jurisdictional challenge.
The CBI relied upon Section 508 BNSS, corresponding to Section 462 Cr.P.C., and argued that proceedings cannot be set aside merely because they were conducted in the wrong local area unless the accused demonstrates that the defect occasioned a failure of justice.
It further pointed out that more than half of the prosecution witnesses had already been examined, four witnesses had been dropped, and only eight remained. Returning the case at that stage would effectively necessitate a fresh trial and undo years of proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court treated Section 508 BNSS, corresponding to Section 462 Cr.P.C., as decisive.
The provision establishes that a criminal proceeding is not liable to be set aside merely because the inquiry or trial occurred in the wrong sessions division, district, subdivision or other local area. Interference is warranted only where the jurisdictional irregularity has actually occasioned a failure of justice.
The Court therefore distinguished between the existence of a territorial jurisdiction objection and the legal consequence flowing from it.
Even assuming that proceedings were conducted in an incorrect territorial forum, that circumstance alone did not automatically invalidate the trial. The accused additionally had to establish prejudice of such nature as to amount to a failure of justice.
In the present case, the petitioners failed to demonstrate any such prejudice.
Precedent Analysis
The petitioners relied upon Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, (2004) 8 SCC 100, along with Delhi High Court decisions in Ramesh Boghabhai Bhut v. State, Puneet Chawla v. State, R.K. Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi), Rajat Pharmachem Ltd. v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and Malkiat Singh v. State, to contend that criminal proceedings must ordinarily be conducted before a court having territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court, however, distinguished those decisions because they involved jurisdictional objections examined at the pre-trial stage or before substantial progress of the trial.
Here, proceedings had remained pending since 2006, charges had been framed, and more than half of the prosecution witnesses had already been examined.
The CBI relied upon State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gownder, (1987) 2 SCC 74, for the proposition that under Section 462 Cr.P.C., proceedings cannot be set aside merely because of want of territorial jurisdiction unless the defect has resulted in a failure of justice.
The Court accepted the statutory principle underlying the CBI’s submission.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court focused heavily on two factors: absence of demonstrated prejudice and the advanced stage of the trial.
The Court observed that the FIR dated back to 2006, the charge-sheet to 2007, and summons to 2008. The petitioners had participated throughout the proceedings, which had substantially progressed.
Section 508 BNSS expressly prevented the proceedings from being invalidated merely because of an alleged error regarding the local area in which the trial was conducted.
The petitioners therefore had to establish that continuing the proceedings before the Delhi courts caused actual prejudice resulting in a failure of justice. The Court found that no such prejudice had been demonstrated.
The stage of the trial was equally significant. More than half of the prosecution witnesses had already been examined and only a limited number remained.
Returning the charge-sheet or setting aside the proceedings at this stage would necessarily lead to a de novo trial, effectively rendering years of proceedings nugatory. The Court held that such a course would not serve the interests of justice where the statutory requirement of failure of justice had not been satisfied.
Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the Revisional Court’s refusal to interfere with the order directing framing of charges.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the CBI proceedings or the charges on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court held that under Section 508 BNSS, corresponding to Section 462 Cr.P.C., a criminal proceeding cannot be invalidated merely because it was conducted in the wrong territorial jurisdiction. The accused must additionally establish that the jurisdictional defect caused a failure of justice.
Since the petitioners demonstrated no actual prejudice and the trial had already substantially progressed, the High Court held that returning the charge-sheet or requiring a fresh trial would be contrary to the interests of justice.
Accordingly, the Court found no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, and permitted the criminal proceedings to continue.
Case Details
Case: Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3944/2026 & CRL.M.A. 15972/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain
Reserved on: 30 July 2026
Date: 11 August 2026
Result: Petition dismissed; orders refusing discharge and framing charges left undisturbed; CBI trial permitted to continue despite the territorial jurisdiction objection.
