JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-In this appeal by special leave the core question which arises for consideration is whether the appellant herein can be charged and tried together with the other two accused by the Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in view of the fact that the appellant herein has been charged only under Section 420 I.P.C. and under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. while the other two accused have been additionally charged of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The appellant contends that the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act has no jurisdiction to try the appellant who is not charged of any offence under the said Act, while the respondent contends to the contrary relying upon the provisions of the said Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court of Bombay by its impugned judgment and order has answered the question in the affirmative holding that the appellant can be tried by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act along with the two accused who also stand charged of offences under the Act.

2. Before adverting to the submissions urged at the Bar, we may very briefly notice the broad facts of the case to appreciate the nature of the allegations made against the appellant and the other two accused. Accused No.1 Sri G.B. Nande was at the relevant time the Manager of the Commercial Branch of the State Bank of India, Fort, Bombay, while accused No. 2 Sri J.S. Kelkar was an Accountant employed in the same branch of the State Bank of India. The appellant herein is accused No.3 who transacted business with the said branch of the State Bank of India on behalf of eight companies with which he was associated. There is considerable controversy as to whether the appellant was a Director of those companies or whether he was simply representing them as their representative. This, however, is not of much consequence in this appeal. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant entered into a conspiracy with the aforesaid officers of the bank to cheat the bank. A clever device, rather intricate in nature, was conceived by them whereby eight separate accounts were opened in the name of the companies concerned and overdraft facility was extended to the companies on the representation of the appellant and with the assistance of the aforesaid officers of the bank. The aforesaid officers of the bank misused their official position and in a dishonest manner the banking business was transacted in such a manner that it caused substantial monetary loss to the bank. This was achieved by the appellant and the officers of the bank acting in concert, pursuant to the conspiracy. The aforesaid officers of the bank abused their official position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves and others. The Special Judge, therefore, framed charges against all the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. The appellant herein was additionally charged of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, the bank officers were also charged of the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

3. Sri S.B. Sanyal, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in view of the express provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the Special Judge could only try offences which are punishable under the Act or any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or abetment of any of the offences punishable under the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 empowers the Special Judge to try an accused at the same trial for any offence committed under any law other than an offence punishable under the Act. He, however, added that before an accused can be charged and tried by the Special Judge for any offence other